PTAB

IPR2025-01073

Light & Wonder Inc v. Evolution Malta Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems, Methods, and Media for Implementing Internet-Based Wagering
  • Brief Description: The ’024 patent describes a modified roulette wagering game. The system randomly selects one or more positions on the roulette wheel prior to the ball landing and assigns an increased payout to those positions for that spin.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are anticipated by or obvious over Kido.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kido (Application # 2008/0248853).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kido, which discloses a multi-player roulette game, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Kido’s system features a “star mark” that is associated with a roulette wheel position to provide a special bonus, such as an increased progressive payout (“prog bonus”). Petitioner asserted that Kido explicitly discloses that the position of this “star mark” can be randomly selected by a processor after betting has closed but prior to the ball falling into a position. When a player bets on a position that is both the winning number and the randomly selected star mark position, Kido awards an enhanced payout. This, Petitioner contended, directly maps to the core limitations of the independent claims requiring the random selection of a position with an increased payout before the game outcome is determined.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the obviousness contentions, Petitioner argued that Kido discloses two alternative modes for determining the star mark's position: setting it in advance or randomly selecting it during the game. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement the random selection routine within Kido’s main game-flow to add excitement, as this was a disclosed and viable option.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Kido expressly describes the routine for randomly determining the star mark's position and states it can be used in the main bonus routine.

Ground 2: Claims 2, 9, and 16 are obvious over Kido in view of Yee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kido (Application # 2008/0248853) and Yee (Patent 9,600,974).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued these dependent claims, which add a “sensor” for determining that the roulette wheel has been spun, are obvious over the combination. Kido discloses a “win determining device” disposed below the wheel, which Petitioner asserted is a sensor for determining the ball’s final position. Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use Kido’s existing sensor to also detect the spinning of the wheel. Yee was cited as teaching the use of various sensors, including imaging sensors and cameras, to capture information from a physical roulette wheel, including video of each spin.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yee's well-understood sensor technology with Kido's roulette system to enhance its functionality. Adding such sensors would provide predictable benefits, such as creating a historical record of spins for review or providing a more robust method for determining game events, which were known goals in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (using sensors to monitor a roulette wheel, as taught by Yee) to a known system (Kido) to yield predictable results, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are anticipated by or obvious over Baron.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baron (Application # 2016/0155296).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Baron, which discloses methods for roulette games with progressive side wagers, teaches all challenged limitations. Baron’s system generates a plurality of random roulette outcomes (e.g., one primary and two ancillary) for a single spin of the wheel. A player receives a payout if their predicted outcome matches one or more of these randomly generated outcomes, with the payout increasing nonlinearly as the number of matches increases. Petitioner highlighted that Baron discloses these random outcomes are generated for a single round of play and can be generated prior to the ball landing in a pocket. For example, a bet on a number matching all three random outcomes could win a large progressive pot, which is a higher payout than for a bet matching only one or two outcomes.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the obviousness arguments, Petitioner contended that Baron’s disclosure of generating random outcomes “at the close of wagering or at the beginning of a new round of play” would have motivated a POSITA to apply this pre-outcome selection to enhance gameplay excitement, as it adds a layer of randomness before the ball lands.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have readily understood how to implement Baron's disclosed method of pre-selecting random numbers and applying a tiered payout structure, leading to a high expectation of success.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 of the ’024 patent as unpatentable.