New Deck of Cards

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience regarding using a new deck of cards for a new casino game. A game I'm working on would work perfectly if I could make "additions" to a standard deck of cards.
Is this something that casino's have no interest in?
If I were to add extra cards to a traditional deck would this allow me to copyright it?
Does anybody know of past or existing examples of games which use a new deck of cards.
Any help would be appreciated.
Cheers
Kingcreights

Spanish 21 uses a regular deck with the 10s removed, obviously easier for the casino to do than add cards.
If you included your own supply of wrapped and sealed decks with a game a casino probably would not object.
I do not recall anyone having done this.

Lucky 13s BJ added 11, 12 and 13 value cards making a total of 16 cards per suit.

Card craps and card based roulette games typically have custom cards. Many of the CA card rooms have a form of blackjack called "Pure 21.5" which uses a standard deck of cards, but some of the cards have the word "Bonus" written on them.

In all of those cases, these are cards that are needed to bypass regulatory issues. I doubt the casino likes having to use them.

Creating a successful casino game with a custom deck of cards that adds cards to the normal 52 (unless you are talking about a single joker) is dead on arrival.

You have a slim to none chance of being successful going the Spanish 21 route and taking out some cards (at least there the casino doesn't have to order custom decks), but you'll have shuffler recognition issues and all kinds of other problems if the game is a single deck or poker type game.

"Just Say No" to using decks that contain anything but the 52 standard cards!

If you are thinking of marketing a casino game with anything other than a regular 52-card deck, maybe adding a joker or two, is highly ill-advised. Please see #4 in my Ten Commandments for Game Inventors.

^ There was a game I saw which was poker based and used a 54 card deck with two Jokers added (Aces or filled straights or flushes type). You got 5 cards and were allowed to drawn twice to improve your hand - payout against a paytable. People seemed to like it and I think it survived beyond the trial. https://wizardofodds.com/games/double-draw-poker/

I've seen two Blackjack variants using a modified deck - the Lucky 13 Blackjack (already described) and another one trying to use negative numbers. There was also an interesting game using domino like cards - they were purpose made with different values on each end of the card (e.g. As - 2d).

There was also a single deck Blackjack game in California using four extra Aces where AA was the "Blackjack" and AX only 21, and I think another using two Jokers where they made your hand 21 and Joker-Joker was the best hand.

Super Pan 9 - a Baccarat variant - used decks without the 9 8 7's ( https://wizardofodds.com/games/super-pan-9/ ). It survived in the UK for a few years.


added references ^^^ I also suspect they provided the cards to the casino, although I only saw the first being trialled.
- https://wizardofodds.com/games/lucky-13s-blackjack/ btw I think they provided the cards to the casino
- http://www.fullcolorgames.com/ "21 or Nothing" (I found this via google showing the pack of cards used.)

Thanks Paradigm.

When I posted the question I think I sort of knew the answer. Just being optimistic I think as I've got the basis of a game that works well with a new deck.

In regards to shuffle machines, If a casino were to use a new deck with extra cards, would that affect the continuous shuffle machines using multiple decks. These machines don't recognize cards do they?

cheers
Kingcreights

"Just Say NO"....sorry, but nothing else matters.

You're competing against other 5000++ games that use a standard deck of 52 cards. Why should a casino consider yours? Because you want casino personnel to worried about your special cards? Sorry, they are busy. DOA.

I'm going to add custom cards to a standard 52 card deck for my new table game. Are you enhancing a pre-existing game or creating a completely new game? If its for a brand new game, I will have to agree with my peers, it will have a very tough time being accepted by the players a d dealers.

On the bright side, I think the design of the extra cards can be protected by copyright.

Copy = Compliment; therefore, No Copy = No Compliment.

I actually just posted an update on the current state of our patent laws that is relevant to your question. The case of In Re Smith involved a BJ variant that was used as the basis for a utility patent application. The Court decided that it was ineligible b/c it is just another way of utilizing the same standard 52 card deck to administer wages and thus deemed it an abstract idea. However, the Court put specific language in the Order which might be right up your alley of using something other than the standard 52 that are commonly used. "That is not to say that all inventions in the gaming arts would be foreclosed from patent protection under
§ 101. We could envisage, for example, claims directed to conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards potentially surviving step two of Alice."

Now whether the dealers and/or players will be ok with that is another issue that I defer to the experts on this site to answer. However, a utility patent would be much better protection than a copyright.

Interesting.

Would that mean that if, say, Spanish 21 were introduced today, that it's "unique" deck of cards, which is nothing more than a standard deck with the 10s removed, could be patented?

I'm still waiting on a blackjack type game using pinochle decks. :-D

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Interesting.

Would that mean that if, say, Spanish 21 were introduced today, that it's "unique" deck of cards, which is nothing more than a standard deck with the 10s removed, could be patented?

Similarly, what about Pai Gow Poker, with the ADDITION of a joker?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Similarly, what about Pai Gow Poker, with the ADDITION of a joker?

Spanish 21 I believe was patented ages ago.
Commission-based PGP with a joker card wasn't able to be patented, because the Bell Club owners openly introduced and used the game commercially for a while before the patent attempt was made, due to bad legal advice. Their original lawyer mistakenly said it couldn't when it could have been patented at that time, so they just introduced the game to the public without protection, making the basic game public domain.

Dan, you completely missed my point.

Based on the new ruling, if S21 or PGP were introduced today, could their "unique" decks be patented?

I mean, those decks are nothing more than 'most' of the cards that come in a retail card package, but simply not the standard 52 used for most games. Patentable, yes or no?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Dan, you completely missed my point.

Based on the new ruling, if S21 or PGP were introduced today, could their "unique" decks be patented?

I mean, those decks are nothing more than 'most' of the cards that come in a retail card package, but simply not the standard 52 used for most games. Patentable, yes or no?

The answer is maybe. They do quote the language that KobalJ states, but as you are all saying, novel decks have been used for years. Spanish 21, PGP, every game in the Full Color Games portfolio, lucky 13s BJ etc...

The question then will be, is this deck modified enough beyond that of those in public use. I think we can all figure out the likely answer to that...

At this point we have had Jokers added, cards removed, additional number cards added, the suits completely eliminated and replaced with colors etc... I think that would be going down the specific path the USPTO and courts have been trying to avoid from the get go under Bilski.

But who knows........

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Dan, you completely missed my point.

Based on the new ruling, if S21 or PGP were introduced today, could their "unique" decks be patented?

I mean, those decks are nothing more than 'most' of the cards that come in a retail card package, but simply not the standard 52 used for most games. Patentable, yes or no?

I say No. Okay, we need Rich N. to chime in.

I could see novel game mechanisms written in "an electronic way" having decent odds, but a felt game only with a special deck seems rough. Tell the patent examiner "But it's got an extra '3' in the deck" might be a tough sell as novel and unique, and not Bilsky-proof.

I say "Good Luck."

Yeah, I thought the answer will be no. Or probably no.

Then again it could've been, hmmmm, that's something to consider…

First off, let me be clear that I am by no means a patent lawyer. That being said, I have put in a whole lot of time into researching the current state of the law for my own patent applications and feel fairly confident about what I've learned.

Just a few months ago a case came out MCRO v Bandai Games. You may not have heard of it as that case was in a different field but I think you will hear more about it in the near future. The crux of that case was focused on the distinction between utilizing existing forms to create a new way of performing a standard process vs an original set of rules which create a novel process that is directed towards improving the industry in a specific manner. So for your question I would think that if the idea uses a non-standard deck but still a deck that was used in some other game that existed prior to the birth of the idea I would say that is merely utilizing existing forms in a way that would not be eligible. Now if it a was a game that utilized a truly original never utilized before deck of cards I think it has a chance.

For my applications I am banking on utilizing the MCRP case to argue that COU can be distinguished from in Re smith bc that case involved a bj variant whereas mine is a process based on an original set of rules that is not based on an existing game such as a variant. I think before MCRO a court would have shrugged off that argument and hold all Casino table games using the standard deck are ineligible pursuant to In Re smith. However, since that MCRO case does exist I think original games now have a chance. For that to work the court would have to determine that the MCRO precedent that was set for an animation of lip synchronization issue also applies to the gaming industry. I think it is reasonable to think that it does.

I will let everyone know how it turns out.

One last thing since it was mentioned, the electronic or gaming machine angle got quickly and I believe correctly shot down unless you can prove that the idea literally enhances or improves the function of gaming machine itself. It can't be that you take what would otherwise be ineligible subject matter and just include it as an electronic version and think that will work. In that case the machine is just used to run the process on a standard gaming machine as opposed to improving gaming machines.

Stadium Blackjack, ShaqJack, etc, Fusion Roulette, baccarat. Surely these are patented ? But simply electronic versions of a base game.

Again I am no expert but I think I can answer this one. (Assuming I understand you correctly.)

I am not familiar with those specific patents but if they were issued prior to all of these changes from Bilsky and more on point In Re Smith then they might not be worth a damn at this point. I will give you an example. Say company X files a for a utility patent in 2006 for a variant and an examiner approved it and issued the patent. Fast forward to 2017 and company X believes three companies are violating their patent so they file suit. It is absolutely possible and probably closer to very likely that the companies who are getting sued will dispute the validity of the patent under section 101. Given the In Re Smith case I would think the court would likely agree and deem them invalid. So just because you apply for a patent and get one does not mean that you can just assume your patents are valid regardless of what happens with the law b/c things may be different when you actually try and use them to prevent someone from violating your rights.

Quote: kobalj

... So just because you apply for a patent and get one does not mean that you can just assume your patents are valid regardless of what happens with the law b/c things may be different when you actually try and use them to prevent someone from violating your rights.

Sigh, swell...

Yes, this was the most shocking part of the process that I learned. It took a while to actually sink into my head just how big of an impact these cases made on the industry. Not only did it make it tough to get a utility patent, it completely nullified the power for the variants that were previously issued patents. The cost of actually getting one issued is significant and the cost of trying to enforce it down the road when someone infringes is even more. So that is a hell of a lot of money for something that has so much uncertainty and can even flip flop with regards to whether you can actually use it to enforce your rights.

I just hope my interpretation of MCRO proves to be correct and then that would at least improve things for certain games that are based on an original set of rules as opposed to a game that already existed like In Re Smith was. Considering most new games are variants and side bets that does not change things a whole lot but something is better than nothing. For kicks I printed out the entire list of licensed games in the state I got my license which is Mississippi. Casino Over Under was one of only 15 games the MGC labeled as new or original. That is 15 out of 297!!