Igt v. Bally Gaming Int'l Inc.
| Citation | 659 F.3d 1109,100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1524 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2010–1364,2010–1365.,s. 2010–1364 |
| Parties | IGT, Plaintiff–Cross Appellant,v.BALLY GAMING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Bally Technologies, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. (Doing Business as Bally Technologies), Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With her on the brief were Alexander J. Hadjis, Brian R. Matsui and Marc A. Hearron. Of counsel on the brief was David P. Enzminger, O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA.Edward J. Defranco, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were Alexander Rudis; and Charles K. Verhoeven, of Los Angeles, CA. Of counsel was Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, of Wilmington, DE.Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Bally Gaming International, Inc., Bally Technologies, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. (Bally collectively) appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment of infringement of certain claims of U.S. reissue patent nos. RE37, 885 ('885 patent) and RE38,812 ('812 patent) owned by IGT. IGT cross appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims of the two patents-in-suit. We affirm.
The patents-in-suit share a common specification and are reissues of U.S. patent nos. 5,752,882 and 5,836,817. The specifications describe a networked system of gaming machines shown in figure 1:
Image 1 (3.25" X 5.28") Available for Offline Print The patents describe a system for controlling networked gaming devices 12–16 and 22–26. The gaming devices shown here are a type “having a pull handle for initiating a game, e.g., slot machines.” '885 patent col.7 ll.17–18. The gaming devices are connected to floor controllers 18 and 28. The floor controllers monitor the activity on the gaming devices and may issue certain commands to reconfigure the gaming devices. Id. col.7 ll.25–31. The floor controllers interface with file servers 32–36. The file servers store data and generate usage reports related to the gaming devices.
Using this architecture, the patents-in-suit describe and claim methods for rewarding players over and above the normal device payouts. Id. col.3 ll.11–18. The floor controller configures a gaming device to pay out extra money if certain conditions are met. Id. col.6 ll.59–62. For example, the gaming devices may be configured to payout a bonus when a player bets a certain amount of money. Id. col.3 ll.10–15. These bonuses and promotions may be used to encourage players to use gaming devices during typically slow periods such as late nights during the week.
The '885 patent claims at issue generally contain three steps: 1) tracking activity of a group of gaming devices, 2) issuing a command to the gaming devices when a predetermined event occurs, and 3) paying in accordance with that command. The '812 patent claims at issue generally contain four steps: 1) issuing an initial command establishing the criteria to cause a bonus to be paid upon the occurrence of a predetermined event, 2) storing the command at a controller for a gaming device, 3) transmitting a pay command to the gaming device upon the occurrence of the predetermined event, and 4) paying at the gaming device responsive to the command. The primary difference between the claims of the two patents is the requirement in the '812 patent claims to initially send the command to the gaming device establishing the criteria for a payout.
IGT accused Bally of infringing these claims when it offers two promotions—Power Rewards and Power Winners. The configuration for both promotions generally includes a host computer that communicates with a controller. The controller, in turn, manages a number of gaming devices. Power Rewards incentivizes players by rewarding them based on their game play at a particular machine. It is commonly known as a “Play X, Get Y” promotion. For example, it could be a play $100, get $10 promotion that rewards a player each time the player reaches $100 in bets on a particular machine. Power Rewards allows a casino operator to define the limits of the promotion including the participating machines and the times. When a player comes to the machine, the player inserts an identification card. In response to the card insertion, the host computer sends a “transaction # 151” to the controller associated with the gaming device. Transaction # 151 includes the “Play X, Get Y” amount that applies. The controller monitors the play and, when the Play X amount is reached, the controller causes the gaming device to display a “Promo” key. The player activates the Promo key to place money in an account. More than one player may win a Power Reward during the promotion.
The other accused promotion is Power Winners. Rather than rewarding players for specific amounts spent, Power Winners randomly selects a single player for a bonus. Power Winners applies to a set of devices selected by the casino operator. During the time period set aside for promotion, the system periodically decides whether to award a bonus. To decide whether to award a bonus, the system splits the allotted time into 125 segments. At the end of each segment, the system generates a random number that determines if that time segment should produce a winner (the exact mechanism for this is not relevant to the appeal). If not, then the promotion continues. If there is to be a winner, the system then randomly selects a winner from the qualified players playing on the machines. Power Winners only has a single bonus for each promotional time period.
The method of payout for Power Winners is important to this appeal. There are two pay methods. In the first method, ACSC, the system pays out using a transaction # 151 message. It is set to Play $0, Get Y. Thus, the winner immediately can access the “Promo” key. In the second method, SDS/CMP, the user is simply notified that he or she has won the promotion and it is paid out through the casino's accounting system.
The district court construed a number of claim terms and turned to the question of infringement on summary judgment. The district court determined that, as a matter of law, the Power Rewards promotion infringes claims 10, 33, and 46 of the '885 patent and claims 21 and 44 of the '812 patent. IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l Inc., 610 F.Supp.2d 288, 305–06 (D.Del.2009). Regarding the '885 patent claims, the district court determined that the transaction # 151 message is a “command” or “message” under the claims. Id. at 301. As noted above, the '812 patent claims require that the system issue a command establishing the criteria for a bonus and subsequently, the occurrence of a predetermined event to pay the bonus. The district court determined that the transaction # 151 message is the “command” and the “predetermined event” is the player's fulfillment of the “Play X” requirement. Id. at 303.
The district court determined that Power Winners in its ACSC embodiment infringes claims 10 and 46 of the '885 patent. Id. at 310. The court held that the predetermined event is the random selection that a given time period should produce a winner. Id. at 308–09. The court further held that the “command” is the transaction # 151 message set to Play $0, Get Y that causes the gaming device to pay out. Id. at 308. Finally, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement by the SDS/CMP embodiment because the only possible “command” does not cause payment, but merely notifies a winner. Id.
Bally appeals arguing that the district court erred in a number of its claim constructions and in its grant of summary judgment of infringement. IGT cross appeals arguing that the district court erred in certain other claim term constructions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys. Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in the nonmovant's favor, there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We review claim construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455–56 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc).
Independent claim 10 of the '885 patent includes many of the claim terms in dispute:
A method of operating gaming devices interconnected by a host computer having a user-operated input device comprising:
associating each gaming device with a unique address code;
preselecting less than all of the gaming devices interconnected by the host computer ...;
using the network to track activity of the preselected gaming devices;
issuing a command over the network to one of said preselected gaming devices responsive to a predetermined event; and
paying at said one gaming device in accordance with the command.
(emphases added). We address the disputed claim terms in turn.
Claim 10 of the '885 patent requires “issuing a command over the network to one of said preselected gaming devices” and “paying at said one gaming device in accordance with the command.” Bally argues that we should construe “one” to require that the command be sent to one and only one machine during a promotional period. It argues that there can be only one command sent to only one machine. Similarly it argues that payment can be made at only one gaming device....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1827
...Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Indefiniteness is a question of law. IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., 659 F. 3d 1109, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Section 112, ¶ 6 provides that "[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step......
-
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
...Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed.Cir.1993)). Indefiniteness is a question of law. IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1119 (Fed.Cir.2011). Section 112, ¶ 6 provides that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for ......
-
On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
...summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute about the operation of the accused products. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1121 (Fed.Cir.2011).In a summary judgment setting, "the burden is upon the moving party to demonstrate that no genuine issue respecting a......
-
Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP
...320 (D. Del. 2009) (quoting SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp. , 225 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ), aff'd , 659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge and motivations of the skilled artisan at the time of the invention. InTouch Tec......