Patent Filings Roundup: Video Gambling Games Going to the Dogs, The Queen’s Cherries, and a Tale of Bankruptcy and Patent Infringement in Cinema Stadium Seating

With 27 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings—25 inter partes reviews (IPRs), one post grant review (PGR) and one covered business method review (CBM), the first in months—this week’s numbers rested roughly within the new normal, with district court complaints flatlining at around 70 (i.e., 68 this week). That included five petitions on five patents owned by SAP brought by the Teradata corporation; on the District Court side, lots of small-potatoes NPE campaigns complemented a number of WSOU filings against their latest target, Dell EMC, as well as a few small company disputes, and one suit against the Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Savvy Dog Rolls the Dice, Gets Bit: Game company Savvy Dog Systems, LLC sued Banilla Games, Inc. for infringement based on skills-based gaming machines—effectively, on their Pot O’ Gold product, a standalone gambling/gaming device that allows players to wager money in Keno, poker, and slots, among other things; they accuse Banilla’s electronic slot machines, among other things, of infringement.  Banilla fired back with a now-rare, soon-to-sunset Transitional Covered Business Method Patent Post-Grant Review (CBM), alleging 101 unpatentability, among other things.  Banilla argues that the methods of awarding electronic payouts involve a “Financial Product Or Service” given that they cover determining “Winning Combinations” for a wager in which the player expects or hopes for a financial payout.

Her Majesty’s Service and Notice of Process: Canadians are nice, but don’t mess with their cherries. You read the caption right: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Van Well Nursery, Inc. et al. has been filed in the Eastern District of Washington, with the Canadian government (as represented by the Queen mum) suing a fruit company and nursery over their U.S.-patented brand of cherries, Staccato®.  Hell hath no fury like a sovereign scorned; the Queen sued for plant patent infringement, correction of inventorship, declaration of ownership, unfair competition and false designation under the Lanham Act, conversion, tortious interference with business relations, and unfair competition (I assume they ran out of things to plead) arguing that the defendants had knowingly engaged in “asexually propagating, possessing, growing, and selling trees and/or fruit they call “Glory,” which is actually … Staccato®.” It gets better: according to the complaint, the Nursery delivered a number of trees to Gordon Goodwin’s Van Well Nursery orchard (meant to be a different brand owned by Canada, the Sonata), and delivered at least one Staccato® tree, as covered by United States Patent PP 20,551 P3, titled “Cherry Tree Named ‘13S2009.’” When he realized the cherries produced by that tree were different, Gordon named them Glory and patented them, marketing them and selling them.  After the Canadians discovered he was doing so and ran genetic tests (!) to confirm, the Crown moved to have them discontinue marketing them in 2014; Gordon agreed to do so, according to the complaint, but in secret continued to propagate and sell the trees illegally, and shipped the trees to the named fruit company defendant, forcing the Queen to drop this cherry bomb.  So many jokes, such little time.

Down in Front: Stadium and movie theater seating provider Telescopic Seating Systems, LLC has kicked their competitor (and possible purchaser or supplier?) when they’re down, hitting them with a patent infringement suit days after they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (and for all the intervening infringement since then).  Suing HIG Cinema Intermediate Holdings, Inc., VIP Components, LLC, VIP Cinema Holdings, Inc., VIP Cinema, LLC, and VIP Property Management II, LLC, all seemingly related to a private equity takeover and attempted restructuring of VIP Cinema Seating, appears to be (I assume) an attempt to recoup some of the losses Telescopic Seating Systems stands to lose from whatever suits, contracts, or licenses were terminated or cancelled when VIP Cinema closed, apparently forever, in part due to COVID-19, and in part, ironically, for their seating being of such high quality that it did not need replacing often. The complaint notes that the assignment to the LLC was recorded last week nunc pro tunc to the day after they filed, meaning that the VIP entities couldn’t take advantage of the automatic stay of patent proceedings during Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.