PTAB

IPR2025-01078

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 ’371 patent describes a variant of the wagering game roulette. The system modifies conventional roulette by randomly or pseudo-randomly selecting one or more positions on the roulette wheel to receive an increased payout for a given spin, with the selection occurring before the ball lands.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16, 19, 21-22, 24-26, and 30 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 discloses every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Kido describes a multiplayer roulette game featuring a "star mark" that designates a special payout position. This "star mark" position can be randomly selected by a CPU after bets are closed but before the ball stops. If a player bets on this position and the ball lands in it, the player receives an increased payout in the form of a "privilege" or a "Prog bonus," which is greater than the standard payout. This directly teaches the core claimed concept of randomly selecting a position for an increased payout prior to the spin's conclusion. Dependent claims reciting features like displaying the selected position or highlighting it on a board are also taught, as Kido’s graphical interface displays the "star mark" on the betting board.
    • Motivation to Combine (for Obviousness): For the obviousness assertion, Petitioner contended that Kido expressly describes that its random selection routine (Fig. 14) can be used in its primary game routine (Fig. 12). A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have found it a simple design choice to implement this disclosed alternative.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination merely involves using an explicitly disclosed alternative process within the primary reference's own system.

Ground 2: Claims 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 27-29 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: This ground targets dependent claims requiring specific payout values (e.g., 49:1), payout multipliers (e.g., '500x'), and reduced non-selected payouts (e.g., 29:1). Petitioner asserted that Kido provides the base roulette system with a generic increased payout. Yee, which also relates to enhanced-payout roulette, supplies the specific missing details. Yee explicitly discloses using multipliers to calculate enhanced payouts, listing values of "10 times, 25 times, 50 times, ... 500 times, and 1,000 times." Petitioner argued that Yee's "50 times" multiplier is equivalent to the claimed 49:1 payout.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Yee’s teachings with Kido’s system to enhance player excitement and engagement. Kido’s objective was to make roulette less monotonous; Yee’s method of displaying large, specific multipliers (e.g., "x1000 YOUR BET!") directly serves this purpose by clearly communicating the potential reward to players. As both references address the same problem in the same technical field, the combination would have been a predictable solution. To maintain the casino's house edge when offering a large increased payout like 49:1, a POSA would have been motivated to decrease the standard payout from 35:1 to a lower value, such as the claimed 29:1, as a matter of simple and predictable game balancing.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involves applying a known technique (using specific, displayed multipliers for payouts) from one system to a similar system to achieve the predictable result of increased player interest.

Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16, 19, 21-22, 24-26, and 30 are anticipated by or obvious over Baron.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baron (Application # 2016/0155296).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Baron discloses a roulette game where, for a single spin, multiple roulette outcomes are randomly generated. If a player's bet matches the primary outcome (ball landing) and one or more of the randomly generated "ancillary" outcomes, the player receives an increased payout (e.g., 100:1 for two matches). Baron discloses that these outcomes can be generated "at the close of wagering or at the beginning of a new round of play," which is prior to the ball landing. This teaches the independent claims’ limitations. Baron further discloses displaying these randomly selected outcomes on player interfaces, which anticipates dependent claims requiring a display that identifies the selected position.
    • Motivation to Combine (for Obviousness): For the obviousness assertion, Petitioner argued a POSA would have been motivated to apply Baron's disclosed method of random-number-selection-before-the-ball-lands (described with respect to one embodiment) to its other disclosed physical table embodiment, as it would predictably add excitement and enhance gameplay.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining different disclosed embodiments from a single reference does not require a leap of inventiveness, and a POSA would have expected the combination to work as intended.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 27-29 over Baron in view of Yee, relying on similar arguments as the Kido and Yee combination for incorporating specific payout multipliers and adjusting non-selected payouts to maintain the house edge.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, and 24-30 of the ’371 patent as unpatentable.