Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shuffle Tech International LLC v. Scientific Games Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

August 1, 2018

Shuffle Tech International, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Scientific Games Corporation, et al., Defendants.

          Craig C. Martin David Jiménez-Ekman Timothy J. Barron Rachel S. Morse JENNER & BLOCK LLP Attorneys for Defendants

          DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF LIABILITY................................1

         A. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved Fraudulent Patent Procurement. . ..................................... 1

1. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved Defendants Failed to Disclose Prior Art. . ................................2
2. None of the Omitted References Was “But For” Material. . ........................ 5
3. No Individual Substantively Involved in the Patent Applications Knew of an Omitted Reference's Materiality. . ............................................ 6
4. There Is No. Evidence of Specific Intent to Defraud the Patent Office. . ......................................................................................................... 7
5. There Is No. Evidence that Any SHFL Decision-Maker Knew of Any Fraudulent Procurement when SHFL Sued DigiDeal. . ........................ 9

         B. Plaintiffs have not proved sham litigation. . ............................................................. 9

1. SHFL's Suit Against DigiDeal Was Not Objectively Baseless. .. ................ 9
2. SHFL Did Not Sue DigiDeal Solely with the Subjective Intent to Harm DigiDeal Through Misuse of Litigation. . ........................................ 10

         II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PROVED THEIR CLAIMED DAMAGES. . ........................ 11

         III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PROVED ANTITRUST STANDING OR THAT CARD SHUFFLERS ARE A RELEVANT ANTITRUST MARKET. . ........................... 13

A. Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Antitrust Standing. . ....................................................... 13
B. Casino-Grade Automatic Card Shufflers Are Not a Relevant Market. . ................ 15

         Defendants (collectively, “SHFL”) respectfully move for judgment as a matter of law because “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find” for Plaintiffs, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); Zimmerman v. Chi. Bd. of Trade, 360 F.3d 612, 623 (7th Cir. 2004).

         I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PRESENTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF LIABILITY

         A. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved Fraudulent Patent Procurement.

         In denying the motion for summary judgment, this Court permitted Plaintiffs to go forward with their claim that Defendants (1) failed to disclose the Block Patent in connection with the ‘982 Patent and (2) failed to disclose information from the Disk in connection with the ‘935 Patent. This Court applied the Federal Circuit's standard for a Walker Process claim, which requires that “the omission alleged to be fraudulent must evidence a clear intent to deceive the examiner.” It is the plaintiff's obligation to “provide independent and clear evidence of deceptive intent.” Dkt. 165 at 27-28. The Court noted this standard was “largely the same” as for inequitable conduct under Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Dkt. 165 at 27, in which the court elaborated that the plaintiff must “prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant knew of the reference, knew that it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it.” Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290. As this Court has explained in its preliminary instruction to the jury, “[i]nformation is material if it would have resulted in the denial of a patent” had the patent office known of it. The Therasense court held there can be no inference of intent from materiality. The court must weigh evidence of intent to deceive independent of its analysis of materiality. “Proving that the applicant knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and decided not to submit it to the PTO does not prove specific intent to deceive.” Id.

         No reasonable jury could find Plaintiffs proved their Walker Process fraud theory by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case.

         1. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved Defendants Failed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.