WINVIEW, INC. v. FANDUEL, INC.
3:21-cv-13807
D.N.J.Jul 11, 2025Background
- WinView sued FanDuel for patent infringement, focusing on U.S. Patent No. 10,806,988 (the '988 patent), which claims a method and system for conducting multiple simultaneous contests based on a single performance in distributed gaming systems.
- FanDuel moved to dismiss WinView’s claims regarding the '988 patent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an unpatentable abstract idea.
- The dispute centers on whether the patented technology offers a specific improvement to computer-related functionality or merely implements an abstract idea using generic computer processes.
- Past litigation involved other WinView patents (the '243, '543, and '730 patents) and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, but only the '988 patent is at issue in this motion.
- The matter is at the motion to dismiss stage, and the court evaluates the validity of the claims assuming the plaintiff’s pleaded facts are true, as required by procedural standards.
- The decision considered whether a determination of invalidity under § 101 can properly be made at this early stage, particularly given the patent's technical subject matter and factual disputes regarding its technological improvements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the '988 patent is invalid under § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea | Patent is directed to a technological improvement for managing real-time, simultaneous gaming contests—claims are rooted in specific computer technology | Patent merely covers abstract concepts (like managing contests or wagering) implemented on generic computers, making it ineligible under § 101 | At the motion to dismiss stage, claim 1 is plausibly non-abstract; court denies dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether the claims can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (making them unpatentable mental processes) | Technology cannot be meaningfully replicated by humans with pen and paper—requires real-time computer networks | Process is readily performed by a human using pen and paper, so it's an unpatentable mental process | Factual disputes about what is possible with pen and paper preclude dismissal at this stage |
| Appropriateness of resolving § 101 issues before claim construction at motion to dismiss | Resolution on a full factual record or after claim construction is appropriate due to technical nature | Argues early dismissal is possible when claims are facially abstract | Court declines to resolve § 101 at this stage due to technical and factual issues |
| Whether claim 1 is representative of all claims in the '988 patent | Claim 1 is not representative; more analysis needed | Claim 1 is representative of the patent's claims | Court does not resolve the representativeness issue, denying motion as to claim 1 only |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (establishes two-part test for § 101 patent eligibility analysis)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (discusses exclusions for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (software claims can be non-abstract if they improve computer functionality)
- In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rules for wagering games are abstract ideas)
- SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to analyzing and displaying data are abstract where no technological improvement is claimed)
- Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to collection and analysis of data are abstract if not tied to a specific technological improvement)
- Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improving computer functionality can be enough for patent eligibility)