CG Technology Development, LLC, et al., v. Zynga, Inc., No. 16-cv-00859 (Jones, J.) (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2016)
- RE39,818 | Entitled, “Personalized wireless video game system”
- 6,899,628 | Entitled, “System and method for providing game event management to a user of a gaming application”
- 6,979,267 | Entitled, “System and method for generating profile information for a user of a gaming application”
- 8,342,924 | Entitled, “System and method for providing enhanced services to a user of a gaming application”
- 7,029,394 | Entitled, “System and method for generating statistics for a user of a gaming application”
- 9,111,417 | Entitled, “System and method for providing enhanced services to a user of a gaming application”
- 6,966,832 | Entitled, “System and method for providing game advice to a user of a gaming application”
- 7,534,169 | Entitled, “System and Method for Wireless Gaming System with User Profiles”
District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the patent is directed to non-eligible subject matter under § 101.
The eight patents involve various aspects of social casino gaming, which allows users to play casino games on mobile computing devices along with other users through an online community.
The court noted a recent outcome in a related case: CG Technology Development LLC v. Big Fish Games, Inc., No. 2:16–cv–00857–RCJ–VCF, 2016 WL 4521682 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2016), a case which involved seven of the eight patents at issue in the present case. In the related case, the Court concluded that six of those seven patents were patent-ineligible under Alice: ’628, ’169, ’267, ’924, ’394, and ’417. As for the ‘RE818 Patent, the Court had determined it was patent-eligible but the related complaint had failed under Rule 12(b)(6) to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted.
In the present case, the court analyzed the patent eligibility of the ‘832 patent utilizing the framework from the Court’s recent decision in the related case and held that “Claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept of using information gathered by observing game events to determine the best options and strategies for a player’s next move.” The Court further explained that “the tasks of providing game advice, managing wagers, and matching participants ... are ... tasks that humans regularly perform in gaming.” Regarding the “something more” consideration, the court held that the “only limitations on the abstract idea are that it involves a server and a remote processor—components which are extraordinarily commonplace in online gaming. These physical devices are used to implement the abstract idea.”
Finally, with regard to the ‘RE818 Patent, based on the Court’s prior determination in the related case, the Court held that it was patent-eligible but that Plaintiffs had failed under Rule 12(b)(6) to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted for failure to identify any specific device. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint on this patent.