Case Update:

This case was well on its way to jury trial, but was dismissed on March 25, 2011, following a settlement by the parties.


Case Update 12/9/09:

As previously reported, Beneficial Innovations, Inc. (“Beneficial”) filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas accusing several entities of willfully infringing claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,712,702 entitled “Method and system for playing games on a network.” Beneficial, a patent-holding company based out of Nevada, subsequently amended its complaint to include U.S. Pat. No. 6,183,366 entitled “Network Gaming System.” On November 30th, Beneficial and three defendants - Digg Inc., CBS Interactive Inc, and Jabez Networks Inc. indicated that a settlement had been reached and filed motions requesting dismissal. The motions, which were granted by Judge Ward, dismissed all claims, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims between the three defendants and Beneficial with prejudice. While the terms of the settlements are confidential, the court’s order indicated that each party would bear their own legal fees and costs.


Original Post:

A new gaming lawsuit was recently filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Beneficial Innovations owns U.S. Pat. No. 6,712,702 on in-game advertising in network games. Claim 1 of the patent reads as follows:

1. A method of playing game instances on the Internet, comprising: first receiving player identification at a game playing Internet accessible node (GPIAN) for first and second players; transmitting, via the Internet, from the GPIAN, first information related to communications between: (a) the GPIAN, and (b) a first Internet accessible node from which the first player communicates with the GPIAN; wherein said first information is utilized in subsequent Internet communications between the GPIAN and the first Internet accessible node; wherein said first information is stored on the first Internet accessible node so that it is available in subsequent different Internet connections by the first player; second receiving, via the Internet, at the GPIAN, first responsive information indicative of said first information being present on said first Internet accessible node; first playing with the first player a first instance of a game, wherein one or more game play representations are transmitted to the first player via the first Internet accessible node; second playing with the second player a second instance of a game, wherein one or more game play representations are transmitted to the second player and from the GPIAN while the first player is playing the first instance; transmitting to at least one of the first and second players, respectively, during one of said first and second games instances, a presentation substantially unrelated to plays of the one game instance, wherein said presentation is advertising a product or service; wherein said step of second receiving at the GPIAN occurs when the first player has reconnected the first Internet accessible node to the Internet after said first information has been stored on the first Internet accessible node and said first Internet accessible node has disconnected from the Internet.

Not exactly bedside reading.

The case is Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-07CV-263, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed June 20, 2007. We'll add this case to our watch list and let you know what happens...

Case Update:

This case was dismissed without prejudice on October 8, 2007. Plaintiff Parallel Processing Corp filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the FRCP. This allows for the plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case Sony had not responded to PPC’s suit with any court filings before PPC filed the voluntary dismissal.


Original Post:

Parallel Processing Corp. has filed a lawsuit alleging that Sony's PlayStation 3 infringes U.S. Pat. No. 5,056,000, entitled "Synchronized parallel processing with shared memory." Not the sexiest of patents with respect to game console hardware, but given the convergence of game consoles and general purpose computers, it's not surprising.

The lawsuit is Parallel Processing Corp v. Sony Corp. of America, case number 07-353, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed July 26, 2007.

We will add this case to our tracking list and keep you posted of new developments.

Read more here, and here.

Case Update:

This case was dismissed with prejudice on June 30, 2008, pursuant to settlement by the parties.


Original Post:

On May 25, 2007, WizKids, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) regarding WOTC's patent no. 7,201,374, entitled Method and Article of Manufacture for Collectable Game." WizKids allege invalidity and noninfringement of the '374 patent, based on previous threatening letters received from WOTC regarding WizKids Pirates of the Spanish Main game.

The case is civil action C07-0809-CMP in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division).

We will add the case to our list of lawsuits and keep you updated as we learn more, and a brief summary of the '374 will follow as well.

Hochstein et al. v. Microsoft et al.
United States District Court for E.D. Mich.
Case No. 04-cv-73071, Filed August 11, 2004

Case Update:

After 6 long years of litigation, Hochstein’s case against Microsoft alleging patent infringement by the Xbox game was dismissed on July 20, 2010. To recap, Hochstein alleged that Microsoft’s Xbox infringed on his patent (link to U.S. Patent No. 5,292,125) for a device that allows two or more people play video games together without being in the same location (such as over a telephone line.) Hochstein argued that this patent should be construed to cover all systems that can have multiple players, like the Xbox, and sought royalties on Xbox sales, plus an order barring further use of his invention.

When last we checked in (June 2009) the court had dealt Microsoft a blow by accepting the Special Master’s construction of “video game communication circuit” to mean “a circuit operatively associated with a local video game and at least one remote video game without limitation as to the circuit's physical location or attachment to the local video game.” Microsoft objected to the master’s recommendations as too broad, but the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to adopt the recommendation anyway.

Ultimately the judge ruled that Hochstein’s patent only covered "game systems that are electrically connected" and that such a connection doesn’t include the type of link among players used by the Xbox. The issue of whether Microsoft infringed Hochstein’s patent turned on the definition of “electrically connected” and whether Hochstein’s use of this term in his patent application included the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction—the technology used in the Xbox.

In the Special Master’s report of June 2009 he recommended that “electromagnetic induction” be excluded from the scope of “electrically connected” but reversed in his December 2009 report to conclude that the term “electrically connected,” as used in the ‘125 patent did include the phenomenon of “electromagnetic induction” after all.

The court rejected these conclusions in a detailed analysis, ruling:

1) that the Special Master erred in considering extrinsic evidence in making this decision;
2) because in this case the ordinary meaning of term could be deduced using the intrinsic evidence contained in the patent application itself absolving the need to look elsewhere, and;
3) that the term “electrically connected” as contemplated by the 125 patent did not include the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, rather it is only used to describe connections by means of electrically conductive wires.

The court also considered whether Microsoft’s litigation conduct—namely the fact that they hadn’t raised the non-infringement defense several years earlier—was properly determined by the Special Master to be an admission by Microsoft that they too believed that “electrically connected” encompassed electromagnetic induction. The court determined that patent cases are unlike contracts cases where “silence is acceptance.” Rather silence in this regard could not be considered as evidence and Microsoft’s failure to present the non-infringement defense earlier could not count as proper extrinsic evidence against its case.

Original Post:

On June 22, 2009, the day before trial began, the judge in this patent infringement case made a key decision by opting to use the special master’s construction of a disputed claim.

In 1991, Peter Hochstein and Jeffrey Tenenbaum came up with the idea of communicating live while playing the same video game in separate locations. They patented the technology for doing so in 1994. In 2002, Microsoft released Xbox Live, a gaming service that also allows users to communicate while playing the same game. Sony also released similar capabilities for PlayStation 2. In 2004, Hochstein, Tenenbaum and Harold Milton, Jr. (an assignee of the patent) brought a patent infringement suit against Microsoft and Sony alleging that the voice and data communications technology used in the gaming systems infringed on the patent claims. For relief they sought a permanent injunction and treble damages. Sony settled its suit in April 2009, leaving Microsoft as the only remaining defendant.

While U.S. Patent No. RE36,574 is also asserted, the primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 5,292,125, which is for an “apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located video games.” See representative claim 1:

1. A video game communication assembly (100) for communicating command signals between a local video game (28) having at least two player ports (A, B), at least one set of player controls (20), and at least two operating modes, and at least one remote video game (30) through a medium (110) capable of transmitting a plurality of data signals and voice signals, said assembly (100) comprising:

control means (106) for controlling command signals received from a set of player controls (20) of the local video game (28) and for creating communication signals;

modem means (114) for bilaterally transmitting said communication signals between said control means (106) and at least one remote video game (30);

first port means (112) for bilaterally transmitting said communication signals between said control means (106) and said modem means (114), said assembly (100) characterized by

said control means (106) including transit time means (126) for determining the amount of time required for said communication signals to travel between said first port means (112) and the remote video game (30).

After years of discovery, last fall Microsoft alerted the court that some claims still needed to be construed before trial began. Microsoft submitted its motion for construction of claim 39 in February 2009. See claim 39:

39. A video game communications circuit for communicating command signals between a local video game having at least two player ports (A, B), at least one set of player controls (20), and at least one remote video game (30) in a medium capable of transmitting plurality of data signals and voice signals, said circuit comprising:

a first microprocessor (140) electrically connected to one set of player controls (20), two player ports (A, B) and an oscillating circuit (Y1, C2, C3, R2);

two player port logic circuits (108, 124) electrically connected between said first microprocessor (140) and the two player ports (A, B);

a switch (150) connected to said first microprocessor (140) having at least two positions;

a modem circuit (114) electrically connected to said first microprocessor (140) for bilaterally transmitting communication signals to and from said first microprocessor (140);

a voice over data circuit (134) for filtering voice signals from communication signals and for transmitting both to said modem circuit (114); and

communication couplers (L1, L2) for connecting said voice over data circuit (134) to the medium of communication.

Microsoft wanted the claim to be construed to mean that the “video game communications circuit” and its associated components were separate and distinct from the video game computer to which the circuit is attached.

Microsoft argued that a distinction between the claimed apparatus and its video game computer was expressly reflected in claim 39, which asserts that the video game communications circuit is not the local video game, but instead, a separate circuit that connects to the local video game. ‘Plaintiffs want to collapse this distinction and ignore the claim's clear direction as to where particular components must be located — i.e., in a separate apparatus, and not in the video game computer itself,’ Microsoft argued in its motion.

In May, the special master to whom the matter was referred issued his report and recommendations, denying Microsoft's proposed limiting construction. Instead, he construed “video game communication circuit” to mean “a circuit operatively associated with a local video game and at least one remote video game without limitation as to such circuit's physical location or attachment to the local video game.” Microsoft objected to the master’s recommendations, but the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to adopt the recommendation anyway, dealing Microsoft a blow right before trial.

Read the court's claim construction order here.

A couple side notes:

This is the same case where Microsoft got in trouble for wasting the court’s time by filing an objection to discovery because of a typo Hochstein made in the discovery request. In February 2009, Hochstein deposed a Microsoft employee, Ms. Mason, about Xbox marketing and then filed a formal request for all marketing documents related to Xbox “including but not limited to all such documents identified by Ms. Mason at her February 12, 2008 [sic] deposition.” Microsoft responded five weeks later with general objections, including “Microsoft objects to this request as vague in that Ms. Mason’s deposition took place in 2009, not in 2008.” Over the next week, Microsoft proceeded to provide over 140,000 documents to Hochstein without any index.

The court, upset by Microsoft playing dumb in its written response, said the frivolous objection to an obvious, harmless typo was a waste of time for all the parties involved. The court issued a separate order directing Microsoft to explain why its counsel shouldn’t be sanctioned “for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.”

Microsoft’s five week delay and “document dump” less than two months before trial also annoyed the court. The court ordered Microsoft to provide an index of the marketing documents within one week and barred Microsoft from introducing the marketing documents against Hochstein or contesting the admissibility of the marketing documents at trial.

Read the court’s discovery order here.

Also, in January 2009, Hochstein filed an almost identical suit as the one discussed here (dubbed Hochstein I), again brought against Microsoft and Sony. According to the complaint, during a Hochstein I pretrial conference in January 2008, the parties discussed whether the defendants’ new game consoles (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) should be litigated in Hochstein I or a separate lawsuit. Hochstein filed this complaint to adjudicate the possible infringement of the new products separately.

Read the Hochman II complaint here.

Case Update:

Following a confidential settlement by the parties, this case was dismissed with prejudice on January 17, 2008.

Original Post:

Forterra Systems, Inc. on November 3, 2005, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Avatar Factory for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,901, entitled "Method, System and Computer Program Product for the Delivery of a Chat Message in a 3D Multi-User Environment." Claim 1 of the '901 patent reads as follows:

1. A system for delivering a message between a sender and a recipient in a three-dimensional multi-user environment, wherein said three-dimensional multi-user environment maintains respective digital representations of the sender and the recipient, comprising:
a sender interface; and
a recipient interface, including a recipient viewport;
wherein said recipient interface receives the message from said sender interface, maps the message to a texture to generate a textured message, and renders said textured message at locations along a path in the three-dimensional multi-user environment, whereby the recipient can visually ascertain at least portions of the path of the textured message through said recipient viewport.

The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California, and is docketed as case no. 5:05-cv-04472-PVT. We will add this case to our tracking list and update of any significant developments.

Case Update:

This case is now closed. On March 7, 2007, plaintiff Interlink filed a voluntary dismissal of the case under FRCP 41(a) 1. Specifically this allows for the plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case Nintendo had not responded to Interlink’s suit with any court filings before Interlink filed the voluntary dismissal.


Original Post:

In today's economy, it is inevitable that any successful product will result in the filing of at least one lawsuit for patent infringement. Nintendo similarly appears to have its first lawsuit based on the Wii. Interlink Electronics, Inc., owner of U.S. Patent. No. 6,850,221, filed a lawsuit against Nintendo on December 4, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges patent infringement based on Nintendo's Wii controller.

The '221 patent is entitled TRIGGER OPERATED ELECTRONIC DEVICE. We will keep you posted as we learn more regarding this lawsuit. All claims of the '221 patent are reproduced below for your own analysis and reading pleasure:

1. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between a first finger and a thumb of a user's hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the first finger of the user's hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board contained within the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a first output signal upon operation of the first switch, the electronic circuit further including a second switch on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit upon operation of the second switch; a first control element mounted with the housing at the first face of the contoured step and operatively connected to the first switch to be responsive to finger pressure such that pressure applied to the first control element causes the first control element to operate the first switch; a second control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the second switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the second control element causes the second control element to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter responsive to an output signal from the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signal for reception by the electronically responsive system.

2. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between an index finger and a thumb of a user's hand, the housing having a generally, straight elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the index finger of the user's hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing within the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to movement of the user's index finger selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a first output signal upon operation of the first switch, and a second switch responsive to movement of the user's thumb selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a second output signal upon operation of the second switch, the electronic circuit further including a second switch on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit upon operation of the second switch; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to pressure applied by the user's index finger to operate the first switch; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to pressure applied by the user's thumb to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signals for reception by the electronically responsive system.

3. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element.

4. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

5. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to transmit in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis from the forward end the output signals provided by the electronic circuit.

6. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between a finger and a thumb of a user's hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the finger of the user's hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board and a second switch on the second side of the board; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to movement of the user's finger to operate the first switch and thereby cause the electronic circuit to provide a corresponding first output signal; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to movement of the user's thumb to operate the second switch and thereby cause the electronic circuit to provide a corresponding second output signal; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signals for reception by the electronically responsive system.

7. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first switch is a mechanical switch and the first control element is operative to respond to pressure applied by the user's finger to operate the first mechanical switch.

8. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element and the second control element is operative to respond to movement of the user's thumb to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

9. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first switch is a transducer responsive element and the first control element is operative to respond to movement of the user's finger to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

10. A trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between an index finger and a thumb of a user's hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the index finger of the user's hand; at least one electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the at least one electronic circuit including a first switch mounted on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to movement of the user's finger selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a first output signal, and the at least one electronic circuit further including a second switch mounted on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to movement of the user's thumb selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a second output signal; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to movement of the user's finger to operate the first switch; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to movement of the user's thumb to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the at least one electronic circuit, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to wirelessly transmit from the forward end a transmitted output signal in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis for receipt by the electronically responsive system.

11. A pointing device as in claim 10, wherein the at least one electronic circuit further includes a third switch mounted on the third side of the board, the third switch being responsive to movement of the user's thumb selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a third output signal; wherein the pointing device further includes a third control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the third switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the third control element causes the third control element to operate the third switch.

12. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element and the second control element is operative to respond to movement of the user's thumb to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

13. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit further includes a third switch responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a third output signal upon operation of the third switch; wherein the pointing device further includes a third control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the third switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the third control element causes the third control element to operate the third switch.

14. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

15. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to transmit from the forward end a transmitted output signal in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis.

16. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

17. A pointing device as in claim 10, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

18. A pointing device as in claim 17, wherein the second switch is a mechanical switch and the first control element is operative to respond to pressure applied by the user's finger to operate the second mechanical switch.

Freedom Wave LLC v. Mad Catz Inc. et al., CV 2:05-cv-02954 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

Technology at issue: Wireless game controllers

Case Update:

This case is now closed. In July of 2005 the case was ordered by the court to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties. On February 8, 2006, Mad Catz filed a joint settlement report, and on March 3, 2006, the action was dismissed without prejudice.


Original Post:

Freedom Wave LLC, apparent owner of at least six patents directed to various technologies for wireless game controllers, has sued Mad Catz Inc., Nyko Technologies Inc., and Logitech Inc. for patent infringement. The specific patents at issue are:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,280,327 - Wireless Game Control Units
U.S. Pat. No. 6,878,066 - Wireless Game Control Units

In its complaint filed April 21, 2005, Freedom Wave LLC alleges that Mad Catz et al. infringe the above patents by "making, using, selling, and offering for sale, products embodying the patented invention including, but not limited to, wireless game controllers that feature vibration." Complaint at 3-4 (emphasis added). In addition to the above-named patents, Freedom Wave LLC also owns the following patents, which were not asserted in the April 21, 2005, complaint:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,585,596 - Wireless Game Control Units
U.S. Pat. No. 6,659,871 - Wireless Game Control Units
U.S. Pat. No. 6,719,633 - Wireless Game Control Units
U.S. Pat. No. 6,743,101 - Wireless Game Control Units

The Patent Arcade will continue to monitor this case on a regular basis and provide new information as it becomes available.

Case Update:

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties this case was dismissed with prejudice on October 10, 2006.

Original Post:

MP Games, Alliance Gaming, and Ballys Gaming have sued Shuffle Master for a misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and patent infringement. The patent at issue is U.S. Pat. No. 6,460,848. The reason we're tracking this case is because the patent is directed to software algorithms used by a card reader in the discard rack to determine which cards have been dealt and played in a casino game, based on a bar code of sorts. While not strictly a video game, the software aspect of this case presents an interesting twist in conventional "gaming."

Figures 5-6 of the '848 patent are reproduced below:


The Abstract of the '848 patent reads as follows:
"A system automatically monitors playing and wagering of a game, including the gaming habits of players and the performance of employees. A card deck reader automatically reads a symbol from each card in a deck of cards before a first one of the cards is removed. The symbol identifies a respective rank and suit of the card. A chip tray reader automatically images the contents of a chip tray, to periodically determine the number and value of chips in the chip tray, and to compare the change in contents of the chip tray to the outcome of game play for verifying that the proper amounts have been paid out and collected. A table monitor automatically images the activity occurring at a gaming table. Periodic comparison of the images identify wagering, as well as the appearance, removal and position of cards and other game objects on the gaming table. A drop box automatically verifies an amount and authenticity of a deposit and reconciles the deposit with a change in the contents of the chip tray. The drop box employs a variety of lighting and resolutions to image selected portions of the deposited item. The system detects prohibited playing and wagering patterns, and determines the win/loss percentage of the players and the dealer, as well as a number of other statistically relevant measures. The measurements provide automated security and real-time accounting. The measurements also provide a basis for automatically allocating complimentary player benefits."

Claim 1 of the '848 patent reads as follows:
"1. A card deck reader, comprising:
a housing having a cradle sized to receive a plurality of playing cards; and
a reading head positioned in the housing to read a respective symbol on each of the playing cards before a first one of the plurality playing cards is manually removed from the housing."

We'll monitor the case and keep you apprised of further developments.

The long awaited decision in Microsoft v. i4i is out. In short, on June 9, 2011, the United States Supreme Court did a surprising thing: it affirmed! The Supreme Court did not change existing patent law or reverse the Federal Circuit. Recent patent case decisions of the Court have sometimes done both, but routinely at least one.