SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
May 8th, 2017 at 2:45:33 PM permalink
Quote: kobalj

As a lawyer myself it takes a lot for me to use the word impossible and this is not one of those times.



Unfortunately, you'll have to learn the hard and expensive way then my friend. But, best of luck in your endeavor.

Literally no chance of it occurring until something drastic changes with those types of cases.

Your best bet is to do what you're already doing with the trademark and layout design. That's all that can be done in this day of age.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
May 8th, 2017 at 2:59:07 PM permalink
I would say legal advice on game patents are best procured from a real attorney, and not from an Internet forum. It can be expensive, with a undesired end result, but it is not 100% - 0%, though annoyingly close. "Probably not" is not "definitely not."

1. The new game may incorporate patentable features, either deliberated added or as a natural part of the design.
2. The game distributors sell/lease games to casino operators, based on these games being IP protected (otherwise the operators would not pay licence fees).
3. Some games are protected by the merits of a trademark that has commercial draw. Games such as 21+3 and Lucky Ladies, whose base patents are expired, thrive on the remaining IP protection of their trademarks.

Some patent attorneys are better than others in getting their clients' patents through the gauntlet of the current USPTO system and its rules. If games utilize or adequately mix in patentable aspects (novel mechanical or electronic game play features into the game play of the cards/dice), it might get patented.

If you invest $20,000 overall into a new game, you can invest a few hundred on a consultation.

Edit/addition: Let me add that the real threat to a game's success is the marketplace odds; if a new game does not catch on, or has a poor field trial, or no installs after years of its creation/introduction, the IP point is moot. A patent is used to protect a commercial success, not a commercial non-entity.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 762
May 8th, 2017 at 3:44:09 PM permalink
Anyone care to list the table games patented in the last three years that don't use a special deck or include a device?

Last four years?

Last five years?

Save your money. Put it on marketing your game to get installs and interest.
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 708
May 10th, 2017 at 9:03:02 AM permalink
Quote: SM777

Anyone care to list the table games patented in the last three years that don't use a special deck or include a device?

Last four years?

Last five years?

Save your money. Put it on marketing your game to get installs and interest.



Not all patents are the same, and with that being said, here is my general question to you without pointing to any specific patents:

With such recent precedent decisions in Alice and Bilski, do you now think that patents of table game prior Alice and Bilski decisions would be easily invalidated if face challenge by anyone (for example Scientific Games, Galaxy Gaming, Caesars, MGM, etc.. ) with deep pocket?
Lucky
Lucky
Joined: Nov 6, 2009
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 192
May 10th, 2017 at 9:11:01 AM permalink
Quote: 777

Not all patents are the same, and with that being said, here is my general question to you without pointing to any specific patents:

With such recent precedent decisions in Alice and Bilski, do you now think that patents of table game prior Alice and Bilski decisions would be easily invalidated if face challenge by anyone (for example Scientific Games, Galaxy Gaming, Caesars, MGM, etc.. ) with deep pocket?


Excellent question!
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." -- Winston Churchill
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 708
May 10th, 2017 at 9:52:57 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

I would say legal advice on game patents are best procured from a real attorney, and not from an Internet forum. It can be expensive, with a undesired end result, but it is not 100% - 0%, though annoyingly close. "Probably not" is not "definitely not."

1. The new game may incorporate patentable features, either deliberated added or as a natural part of the design.
2. The game distributors sell/lease games to casino operators, based on these games being IP protected (otherwise the operators would not pay licence fees).
3. Some games are protected by the merits of a trademark that has commercial draw. Games such as 21+3 and Lucky Ladies, whose base patents are expired, thrive on the remaining IP protection of their trademarks.

Some patent attorneys are better than others in getting their clients' patents through the gauntlet of the current USPTO system and its rules. If games utilize or adequately mix in patentable aspects (novel mechanical or electronic game play features into the game play of the cards/dice), it might get patented.

If you invest $20,000 overall into a new game, you can invest a few hundred on a consultation.

Edit/addition: Let me add that the real threat to a game's success is the marketplace odds; if a new game does not catch on, or has a poor field trial, or no installs after years of its creation/introduction, the IP point is moot. A patent is used to protect a commercial success, not a commercial non-entity.



I personally would come up with some catchy names for the 21+3 and Lucky Ladies side bets rather than paying royalty for using the trademarked names.
Last edited by: 777 on May 10, 2017
ahiromu
ahiromu
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2101
May 10th, 2017 at 2:14:25 PM permalink
Aside from fighting the ruling itself - you're going to have to convince an examiner that your table game is more than just rearranging data. I don't see that happening. I'm pretty sure something like this is handled in-unison by the art unit. You'll get a lengthy 101 and told to appeal. Lots of money and lots of time for something you are very unlikely to win. I do not speak with any special knowledge of that AU, just my opinion knowing how the office works.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
ronnief
ronnief
Joined: Apr 8, 2017
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 22
May 10th, 2017 at 2:20:34 PM permalink
Quote: SM777

Anyone care to list the table games patented in the last three years that don't use a special deck or include a device?

Last four years?

Last five years?

Save your money. Put it on marketing your game to get installs and interest.



You did say 5 years ? Sorry Free Bet patent issued June 13, 2013. Not saying you do not have a valid point, just saying.
ahiromu
ahiromu
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2101
May 10th, 2017 at 2:33:04 PM permalink
Quote: ronnief

You did say 5 years ? Sorry Free Bet patent issued June 13, 2013. Not saying you do not have a valid point, just saying.



US 20130150138 is a publication number. All patent applications get published these days unless you opt out. The same inventor has tried a bunch of other games, these were patents issued in 2012 & 2013. You'll notice that every single one of them involves executing instructions/operations on a processor.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=8157632B2&KC=B2&FT=D&ND=4&date=20120417&DB=&locale=
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=8177614B2&KC=B2&FT=D&ND=4&date=20120515&DB=&locale=
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=8371917B2&KC=B2&FT=D&ND=4&date=20130212&DB=&locale=
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=8382568B2&KC=B2&FT=D&ND=4&date=20130226&DB=&locale=

This is the list I got them from:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=US&NR=2013150138A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20130613&DB=&locale=


Edit: Sorry, made an incorrect assumption. The first four links are to the allowed claims. Claims are your legal protection, the specification and drawings (for the most part) mean nothing in the legal process.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
ronnief
ronnief
Joined: Apr 8, 2017
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 22
May 10th, 2017 at 2:43:10 PM permalink
Are you saying the patent for Free Bet was not issued in the last 5 years ?

  • Jump to: