Gaelco S.A. v. Arachnid 360, LLC

• Decision Date: 21 December 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16 C 10629,16 C 10629
• Citation: 293 F.Supp.3d 783
• Parties: GAELCO S.A. and Gaelco Darts S.L., Plaintiffs, v. ARACHNID 360, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

293 F.Supp.3d 783

GAELCO S.A. and Gaelco Darts S.L., Plaintiffs,

v.ARACHNID 360, LLC, Defendant.

No. 16 C 10629

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed December 21, 2017

Robert Stephan Rigg, Timothy Michael Nitsch, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Robert David Donoghue, Anthony James Fuga, Steven Eric Jedlinski, Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin, United States District JudgePlaintiffs Gaelco S.A. and Gaelco Darts S.L. (collectively, "Gaelco") sued defendant Arachnid 360, LLC ("Arachnid") for allegedly infringing Gaelco's patent covering a system and method for remotely refereeing dart games. Arachnid moves to dismiss Gaelco's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Gaelco's asserted claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. R. 19. For the following reasons, the Court grants Arachnid's motion.

Background

A. Gaelco's Patent

The Court accepts well-pleaded facts in Gaelco's complaint as true for purposes of deciding Arachnid's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Mann v. Vogel , 707 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir. 2013). Gaelco S.A. is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 7,361,083 (the "'083 patent"), and Gaelco Darts S.L. is the exclusive licensee of the technology disclosed in the '083 patent. R. 1 ¶ 6. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the '083 patent on April 22, 2008. Id. ¶ 7.

The patent is titled "Multimedia system and method for remote monitoring or refereeing in dart machines. " Id. It "contains claims directed to a remote monitoring or referee system for one or more dart machines where at least one refereeing center receives multimedia and captured content of play information to determine whether at least one of the players complies with at least one condition of play." Id. ¶ 9.

The '083 patent's "Description of the Invention" section states, in part:

An object of the present invention is to provide a management system and method for amusement machines, located either in substantially the same location or at a remote location with respect to one another. The system and method is applicable to any type of amusement machines, whether sports machines (e.g., darts, etc.) or otherwise.

Another object the [sic] invention is to provide a method to manage the refereeing of the games played on amusement machines wherein a human or non-human referee can make decisions at a remote site. Monitoring or Refereeing may occur in real time or with a time delay, based, at least in part, on multimedia information captured from the amusement machines which may communicate over a network such as the Internet. Accordingly, the system and method enables game play to be monitored and refereed, cheating to be reduced and enhances fair competition in games and between players....

[T]he multimedia information and other data may be transmitted over a network (e.g., a LAN, WAN, the Internet, a wireless network, a cellular network, etc.) to an appropriate receiving device (e.g., monitors, computers, speakers, etc.) at the refereeing center....

[T]he system of this invention permits playing individual or team competitions on a global scale, wherein the games are played with efficient supervision of all incidents of play, as it includes the game environment in the system.

R. 1–1 cols. 2–4.

Claim 1 recites:

A remote monitoring or refereeing system for one or more dart machines comprising:

one or more dart machines, each of the one or more dart machines comprising:

play components and means to capture multimedia information relating to conduct of play and performance of players using the one or more dart machines;

at least one camera to capture the conduct of play; and

means for transmitting the multimedia and captured conduct of play information, and

at least one refereeing center to receive multimedia and captured conduct of play information, to determine whether at least one of the players complies with at least one condition of play, either nearly instantaneously or with a time delay, and to transmit data including the determination as to whether at least one of the players complies with at least one condition of play to the one or more dart machines.

R. 1–1 col. 6.

Claim 10 recites:

A remote monitoring or refereeing method for dart machines, to be used in a system comprising:

a plurality of dart machines communicating over a network, each of the plurality of dart machines comprising: play components, means for capturing data on performance of the players at the machines and image capturing means;

means for transmitting the data captured from the dart machines to the communication network; and

one or more refereeing centers for evaluating the data transmitted over the network and to enable refereeing of play substantially instantaneously or with a time delay;

the method comprising:

capturing, if the player complies with certain conditions of play during the game play, a result of a portion of play and an image of the area of play and of the player;

transmitting the result and the image to the one or more refereeing centers to be evaluated by a referee;

enabling a decision by the referee as to whether the portion of play has been performed without infringing a rule of play;

transmitting the decision via the network to corresponding dart machines according to a competition refereed; and

displaying the decision on the corresponding dart machines according to the competition refereed.

Id. cols. 7–8.

Gaelco's additional asserted claims (claims 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 19¹ ) depend on either claim 1 or claim 10. See R. 21 at 4–5 (Gaelco's response brief quotes the language of "independent" claims 1 and 10 in full, and then explains that "[t]he other Asserted Claims are all dependent claims").

B. Gaelco's Business

Gaelco sells dart machines called Radikal Darts that connect multiple dart boards together to allow players to compete over the internet. R. 1 ¶ 10. Radikal Darts machines are covered by the '083 patent because they include the claimed refereeing system allowing a referee to review a dart match for rule violations. Id.

C. Gaelco's Infringement Complaint Against Arachnid

Gaelco brings a two-count complaint against Arachnid for infringement of the '083 patent. Count I alleges that Arachnid has directly infringed the '083 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by creating a remote monitoring or refereeing system for dart machines marketed as Arachnid Galaxy 3 without permission or license from Gaelco. Id. ¶¶ 12–19. Specifically, Gaelco alleges that Galaxy 3 infringes claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 19 of the '083 patent. Id. ¶ 15. Count II alleges that Arachnid has induced infringement of the '083 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by configuring its Galaxy 3 machines such that operators who use them perform methods that infringe at least claims 10–14 of the '083 patent. Id. ¶¶ 20–29.

Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. E.g., Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7 , 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). A complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The statement must give defendant "fair notice" of the claim and the basis for it. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). This standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). " ‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ " Mann , 707 F.3d at 877 (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). In applying this standard, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Mann , 707 F.3d at 877.

Whether a claim recites patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an issue of law. In re Bilski , 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Patent eligibility under § 101 is therefore appropriately decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion prior to claim construction. E.g., Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (district court properly resolved Rule 12(b)(6) motion based on § 101 prior to claim construction); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC , 772 F.3d 709, 714–17 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.) , 687 F.3d 1266, 1273–74 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same). Courts use the claim interpretations most favorable to the patentee when entertaining a motion to dismiss based on § 101 prior to construing the claims. Content Extraction , 776 F.3d at 1349 ; O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science, Inc. , 149 F.Supp.3d 984, 988 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Discussion

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter broadly as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has recognized an "important implicit exception" to § 101's broad language: "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of this exception is to prevent "[m]on...