Rembrandt Gaming Technologies Pushes for Appeals Rulings

Virginia-base Rembrandt Gaming Technologies has cleared the path for a Ninth Circuit ruling on a non-infringement judgment against several Las Vegas casinos and others regarding patented slots technology.

Rembrandt in May 2012 accused the casino operators and others of infringing upon its U.S. Patent Number 6,641,477 for an Electronic Second-Spin Slot Machine.

Named as defendants in the 2012 complaint are Boyd Gaming, Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Ramparts, Mandalay Corp., Circus Circus Casinos, Victoria Partners, MGM Grand Hotel, Bellagio, The Mirage Casino-Hotel, New York-New York Hotel & Casino, Area Resort & Casino, WMS Gaming, Penn National Gaming, New Castle Corp., MGM Resorts International and LVGV.

MGM Resorts International was terminated as a defendant in May 2015.

Rembrandt’s attorney, Barry L, Breslow, says the patent is for an “inventive method of operating slot machine games commonly found in casinos.”

Its patent abstract describes the device as an electronic slot machine that allows players to completely replace up to all of the initial symbols displayed after the first draw in order to “create, improve or even lose a winning combination.”

In its preferred form, the slot machine features a video monitor with several separate display boxes for various symbols, and the display boxes are arranged in rows and columns. Its microprocessor generates one or more random numbers to determine which symbols are displayed in each box.

If a winning combination of symbols does not appear, the patented device enabled players to choose which symbols to keep, up to all of them, and spin again.

“One frequent frustration that players have with slot machines, even the new electronic slot machines, is that the combination which is finally displayed along their betting line may fall just short of a winning combination, and the player has no opportunity for adjusting the displayed combination, short of completely starting a new game,’ Rembrandt says in its patent.

Rembrandt says a commonly used “nudging” feature on some slots can provide limited relief, but that only works if other reels are lined up properly. If not, Rembrandt says the nudging feature is useless.

To cure that problem, Rembrandt patented its Electronic Second-Spin Slot Machine device, which allows players to use a touch screen to choose the symbols they want to keep. Upon a second spin, the patented device generates one or more additional random numbers to determine which symbols will appear in the boxes the player did not save after the first spin.

If a symbol repeats in the same box after the second spin, the player can respin that box for a different symbol. The microprocessor also enables differing color backgrounds for the symbol boxes, which can be used to create more winning combinations.

Once the new symbols are displayed, the microprocessor compares all of the displayed symbols, determines if a winning combination exists, and provides the payout for the appropriate amount when wins are recorded.

Boyd Gaming, et al., argued that Rembrandt’s infringement claims are overly broad and said Rembrandt removed the key word “initial” from what they called an unsupported complaint.

The court ruled “initial” in Rembrandt’s claim refers only to symbols appearing on the first draw or spin, and removing that word from its complaint rendered it meaningless. The court had questioned the definition of “first spin,” suggesting it equally could be applied to bonus or extra spins, and ultimately ruled it only applies to the first spin.

The court also said the language of Rembrandt’s claim was not clear, and there are many possible ways to construe its meaning. Rembrandt then realized it could not prevail in the federal district court, and in December sought a judgment in defendants’ favor, so that it could appeal.

Rembrandt appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but with Caesars Entertainment Operating Company in a contested federal bankruptcy, the case could not go forward.

That prompted Rembrandt on June 16 to file an unopposed motion asking the court to withdraw its December judgment and replace it with a new judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(B).

Rembrandt also asked the court to stay the proceedings involving Caesars, pending the outcome of its bankruptcy proceedings, so that that the four-year-old case could proceed without defendant Caesars.

Rembrandt and defendants will ask the Ninth Circuit to stay Rembrandt’s current appeal, which is in the court docket, while the federal district court handles the procedural appeal.

If Rembrandt chooses to appeal the eventual district court decision on the 54(b) issue, Rembrandt said it will ask the Ninth Circuit to consolidate them into one appeals case.

U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du on Thursday granted Rembrandt’s motion and entered a judgment of non-infringement in favor of Boyd Gaming, WMS Gaming and LVGV, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Du excluded Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. from the ruling, due to its automatic litigation stay in federal bankruptcy court.