Cantor Gaming is going to take a second crack at its patent-infringement claims against some of the mobile gaming industry’s biggest players.
In an Oct. 28 status report filed in Nevada federal court, CG Technology dba Cantor Gaming and co-plaintiffs Interactive Games Ltd. and Interactive Games LLC announced they will file an amended complaint in what they hope will be a single consolidated case.
Earlier in October, Canter Gaming, et al., filed a motion to consolidate their patent-infringement cases against DraftKings, FanDuel, 888 Holdings, Big Fish Games, Double Down Interactive, Zynga and Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment.
Zynga, Double Down and Big Fish oppose Cantor Gaming’s motion to consolidate, while FanDuel, Bwin and 888 Holdings filed responses saying they do not oppose case consolidation.
The court already dismissed all but one of the patent infringement claims against several defendants, saying the claims are too abstract and, therefore not patent-enforceable. letting Cantor Gaming file amended complaints.
The invalidated claims are for systems and methods for providing game event management, wireless gaming, generating profile information and user statistics, enhanced user services and personalized wireless video game system.
In September, U.S. Magistrate Judge C.W. Hoffman Jr. said DraftKings was likely to prevail on its motions to dismiss several of the patent claims against it, and U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in October dismissed with leave to amend four of seven patent violation claims based on willful infringement against FanDuel.
Federal law and Supreme Court Rulings exclude abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature from being patent-eligible. To be patent-eligible, an item must be “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,” according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
“The driving concern behind this exclusionary principle is one of pre-emption – ‘that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity,’” Jones wrote in October.
He said the Supreme Court adopted a two-step process that first determines whether the infringement claim is “directed at a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea,” and whether an “inventive concept” is enough to transform the abstract idea into a “patent-eligible application.”
Jones concluded most of Cantor Gaming’s infringement claims are for patent-ineligible concepts that are too abstract.
With most of its patent claims ruled patent-ineligible, Cantor Gaming already prepared an amended complaint for a potential appeal.
Meanwhile, Cantor Gaming seeks a cased consolidation after filing its amended complaint in Nevada Federal District Court.
