Short Summary
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review, Light & Wonder, Inc. seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7‑12, 14‑18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,629,024, which covers a roulette‑based wagering system that randomly selects positions for increased payouts. The challenger contends that the claimed inventions are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by three earlier references—Kido (2008), Yee (2017), and Baron (2016)—covering the same random‑selection mechanics, sensor‑based spin detection, and tiered payout structures. The petition details how each claim element maps onto the prior art and argues that the patent lacks any inventive contribution, invoking §§102 and 103 for unpatentability.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. vs Evolution Malta Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Element TV Company, LP et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.