DraftKings scores triple patent lawsuit win
US sports betting operator successfully lobbies for review of three patents in geolocation and age verification software infringement case
DraftKings has won the latest stage of an ongoing patent infringement battle against Interactive Games, with the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a trio of patents held by the firm.
Following a review of patents held by Interactive Games LLC, the PTAB invalidated three patents (US Patent Nos. 9,430,901; 8,956,231; and 8,616,967), determining claims made by the firm in its suit against DraftKings as unpatentable.
Specifically, the PTAB suggested those patents were invalid in light of earlier patents filed and “prior art” printed publications. It followed a request for a PTAB review by DraftKings in June 2020 as part of proceedings in a Delaware lawsuit initially brought by Interactive Games in 2019.
Patent 231 relates to so-called ‘multi-process communication’ regarding gaming information, while patents 967 and 901 concern the system and method for convenience gaming and for wireless gaming with location determination respectively.
Specifically, these patents concern systems for mobile and online gambling for online casino gameplay from remote locations on mobile devices, as well as age verification and geolocation software used to comply with local laws.
Interactive Games’ assertion that DraftKings had failed to adequately illustrate why existing technology used to locate users via GPS (a system called Wells) utilised by the firm with updated technology which enables the tracking of users via wireless network (a system called Bahl) were dismissed by the PTAB.
The Wells system is only usable in a casino, something which is superseded by the Bahl system, which tracks wireless network users wherever they are located.
In its argument, Interactive Games had suggested Wells was adequate for purpose and did not need to be updated, something which the PTAB rejected.
“Even if the assertion of adequacy was correct, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Wells still was open for improvement through the use of Bahl’s teachings,” the PTAB said.
“The purported ‘adequacy’ of Wells does not negate the obviousness of improvements from the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,” it added.
Similar claims relating to patent 967 referred to the replacement of the Wells system with a system called Harkham, which feeds into technology by allowing time checking of players, something which DraftKings suggested would enhance responsible gambling checks.
While these claims were not entirely agreed on by the PTAB, it found there was enough justification to invalidate the patent in this case, also invalidating a third patent, patent 901.
A fourth patent contested as part of the Delaware lawsuit by Interactive Games against DraftKings is still under review.