442 F.Supp.3d 840
D. Del.2020Background
- Plaintiffs CG Technology Development, Interactive Games Ltd., and Interactive Games LLC sued FanDuel alleging infringement of multiple patents; only claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,771,058 remained at issue.
- The '058 patent claims determining a mobile gaming device's location, using a lookup table to map locations to game configurations, and implementing the configuration; at construction the court defined "lookup table" as "an array or matrix of data that contains items that are searched."
- The case was transferred from the District of Nevada to the District of Delaware; the PTAB had found claim 1 invalid under § 103, leaving claim 6.
- FanDuel moved under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, arguing claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice).
- Plaintiffs invoked the law-of-the-case based on earlier Nevada decisions and argued claim 6 is a specific, non-abstract improvement to mobile gaming using a specific data structure.
- The court rejected law-of-the-case, found claim 6 directed to the abstract idea of determining game configuration based on location, concluded the lookup-table limitations were conventional, and granted FanDuel’s Rule 12(c) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of law-of-the-case from Nevada rulings | Nevada decisions that denied §101 dismissal bind this case after consolidation | Nevada rulings were not part of the same case/docket here and do not bind this Court | Not applied — law-of-the-case does not govern because prior Nevada decisions were not in the same case docket |
| Alice step 1 — Is claim 6 directed to an abstract idea? | Claim 6 improves mobile device operation and displays via a specific data structure (lookup table) and thus is not abstract | Claim 6 embodies the abstract idea of determining game configuration based on location; steps are organizing human activity using computers as tools | Directed to an abstract idea — the court finds claim 6 abstracts the concept of mapping location to game configuration |
| Whether claim elements constitute a technical improvement (Enfish/McRO/SRI analogy) | Claim 6 is like Enfish/McRO/SRI — a specific structural/data improvement to computer functionality | Claim 6 merely uses a generic lookup table and conventional computer functions, akin to Electric Power Group | Not an improvement to computer technology itself — more like Electric Power Group; Enfish/McRO/SRI analogies rejected |
| Alice step 2 — Does claim 6 contain an inventive concept? | The arrangement addresses jurisdictional/game-permission problems; nonconventional arrangement per Bascom supports eligibility | The lookup table is a conventional data structure used in a routine way; no inventive concept | No inventive concept — lookup table and searching are conventional; claim fails §101 and is ineligible |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (establishes the two-step framework for §101 analysis)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (limits on patenting laws of nature and need for more than mere application)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims improving computer functionality themselves can be non-abstract)
- Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that gather/analyze/display information are abstract)
- Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept can arise from a nonconventional arrangement of known elements)
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to specific improvement in computer animation were non-abstract)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual issues may exist on whether claim elements are conventional at Alice step two)
- BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (application of abstract idea using conventional techniques is not an inventive concept)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (step two asks whether claim adds significantly more than the abstract idea)