‘Tic Tac Fruit’ Gaming System Claims Fail CAFC’s Eligibility Analysis

The U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, March 21, affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment that claims of a patent for an digital gaming system had been ineligible below Part 101.

U.S. Patent No. 7,736,223 is owned by Savvy Canine Methods and POM of Pennsylvania (Savvy Canine) and is directed to a “extra skill-based and fewer chance-based” model of an digital sport referred to as “Tic Tac Fruit.” Savvy Canine sued Pennsylvania Coin and PA Coin Holdings (Pennsylvania Coin) for infringement within the Center District of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Coin moved to dismiss the case, partially as a result of it mentioned the claims constituted patent ineligible material.

The district court docket agreed, holding that “declare 44 describes the principles for enjoying a sport, and is thus an summary concept throughout the which means of Alice the 1st step.” Nonetheless, the district court docket denied the movement to dismiss as a result of willpower of Alice step two, particularly, “[w]hether the expertise embedded into the sport processor is an enchancment and ‘ingenious idea’ is a query of indisputable fact that the court docket can not decide at this early stage of litigation.” Following declare building, Pennsylvania Coin moved for abstract judgment, once more arguing the claims had been ineligible, and the court docket mentioned at Alice step two “that not one of the claimed parts of declare 44 individually, or in an ordered mixture, reworked the summary concept into an ingenious idea,” thus granting abstract judgment.

On attraction, the CAFC famous that Savvy canine disagreed with the district court docket’s characterization of declare 44 as being directed to the principles for enjoying sport and mentioned as an alternative that the declare is “really directed to ‘a novel gaming terminal structure’ that

previews the sport ‘earlier than the participant commits to play the sport, thereby elevating talent and lessening the position of probability within the sport.’”  However the CAFC mentioned that, below both building, the declare is directed to an summary concept. Citing to In re Smith, the appellate court docket mentioned it has “discovered related sport implementations to be patent ineligible” and that, even below Savvy Canine’s interpretation, “declare 44 shouldn’t be directed to a technological answer to a technological drawback.” Additional citing to Chargepoint v. SemaConnect, the CAFC continued:

“Notably, the specification doesn’t describe ‘overcoming some kind of technical problem’ in displaying the preview of the sport earlier than participant dedication….

Certainly, the invention is directed to an idea for overcoming the authorized obstacles mentioned within the Background part of the patent slightly than offering a technological answer to a technological drawback.”

Whereas Savvy Canine had argued that the invention solves the authorized issues surrounding Ohio’s crackdown on digital playing video games, after which solely “skill-based” video games during which “the result of play in the course of the sport have to be managed by the individual enjoying the sport and never by predetermined odds or random probability managed by the machine,” the CAFC mentioned the answer supplied shouldn’t be a technological one. “Slightly the purported elevation within the participant’s talent is because of when the sport discipline is displayed, not how it’s displayed,” wrote the court docket. “Acknowledged in a different way, nothing within the declare or the specification describes a brand new technological means of displaying.”

At Alice step two, Savvy Canine argued that “the testing of the sport discipline and the automated previewing of the particular sport to be performed, whether or not individually or as an ordered mixture, are ingenious ideas,” in response to the opinion. However the CAFC discovered that “these steps are summary concepts themselves—whether or not seen as a part of a algorithm for enjoying a sport or a part of a sport previewed to the participant earlier than committing to enjoying—and thus can’t be an ingenious idea below Alice step two.”

Since all that’s left of the declare after the summary concept is recognized are “generic and traditional pc elements (e.g., a gaming terminal and contact display show) which are utilized in a routine and traditional means,” the declare additionally fails at Alice step two, mentioned the court docket.

Picture Supply: Deposit Photographs
Writer: miflippo
Picture ID: 28667711