Federal Circuit dismisses summary judgment in gambling case
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a district judge erred in granting summary judgment in a case involving two gambling companies.
SHFL Entertainment, a manufacturer of automated card shufflers, filed a patent infringement claim against electronic games company DigiDeal Corporation in October 2012 at the US District Court for the District of Nevada.
SHFL Entertainment alleged that DigiDeal’s automatic single deck card shuffler, the ‘DigiShuffle’, was infringing two of its patents, US numbers 6,651,982 and 7,523,935, which cover “Card shuffling apparatus with integral card delivery”.
In response, DigiDeal asked the US Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) to re-examine SHFL Entertainment’s patents while litigation was pending.
The USPTO cancelled all originally-asserted claims of the ‘935 patent and confirmed one new claim as patentable. It confirmed the patentability of all originally-asserted claims of the ‘982 patent in their amended form and two new claims.
During the re-examination period, DigiDeal agreed to a preliminary injunction where it said it would not manufacture the DigiShuffle card shuffler.
In January 2016, after the USPTO made its final decision, DigiDeal filed a motion for summary judgment arguing “that the case was moot as to all asserted claims”.
The district court ruled in favour of DigiDeal in March 2016, and found the entire suit was moot, entering summary judgment against SHFL. It also lifted the preliminary injunction against DigiDeal.
The Federal Circuit said yesterday, May 2, that while the district court was correct to find the case moot as to the cancelled claims of the ‘935 patent, it said suits based on cancelled claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not for summary judgment.
The Federal Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment on the cancelled claims.
According to the appeals court, the lower court “failed to determine whether the new and amended claims that emerged from the re-examinations of the two patents are substantially identical to the claims originally asserted in the action”.
“We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment as to those claims, and remand for the court to make that determination.”
In its decision, the Federal Circuit said the question of whether the case is moot was dependent on whether the claims after re-examination were “substantially identical” to the claims that were originally asserted.
According to the Federal Circuit, the district court “failed to undertake that evaluation”. The summary judgment has been vacated as to those claims, and the case has been remanded to the district court.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories
Delta dispute with ‘fraudulent’ ticket site concludes
AG says TM successor in title can file oppositions
Nicki Minaj hit with copyright infringement claim
Barnes & Thornburg welcomes Brinks Gilson & Lione shareholder
