Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology
709 F.3d 1348
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Aristocrat and IGT compete in casino gaming machines; Aristocrat accuses IGT of infringing two patents related to progressive jackpots via a second game after the main game.
- The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, adopting Muniauction’s single-actor requirement for direct infringement.
- The en banc Akamai decision vacated/remanded indirect infringement issues and clarified inducement standards.
- The patents ('215 and '603) describe a network of gaming machines awarding a progressive prize via a second game triggered after the main game, with '603 lacking an activation by the player step.
- Claim construction centered on “awarding” (confer rights) and “making a wager” (player-bet) terms; testing and the timing of the second game were critical.
- The appeal affirms some constructions and direct-infringement ruling, vacates remand on indirect infringement, and leaves factual disputes about timing of the second game unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of awarding | Aristocrat argues awarding can be presenting, not transferring entitlement. | IGT argues awarding = conferring an entitlement, not merely displaying. | Awarding means conferring rights to prize, not merely displaying. |
| Construction of making a wager | Aristocrat says it could be performed by machine or player depending on clause. | IGT argues it is player-bet (acts by player). | Making a wager means betting, an act performed by the player. |
| Direct infringement framework | Aristocrat contends one actor could cause all steps. | No single actor performs all steps; Muniauction controls. | No material fact shows a single actor performs all steps; direct infringement not shown. |
| Indirect infringement provenance | Inducement could be shown under Akamai guidance. | Direct infringing must be proven first per older standard. | Indirect infringement remanded for potential inducement theory under Akamai. |
| Timing of second game | Disputed whether second game appears after main game. | Accused devices show different timing. | Material facts exist on when the main game completes; disputed timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (redefines inducement; no single direct infringer required for indirect theories)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (divided infringement framework; single-actor requirement for direct infringement)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (dictionary usage allowed to inform claim meaning; extrinsic evidence can be considered)
- Cross Medical Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (direct infringement requires act by one party or agent; no vicarious liability absent agency)
- BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (direct infringement requires all steps performed; strict liability limited to those who practice each step)