BODOG TO RE-EXAMINE 1ST TECHNOLOGY ONLINE GAMBLING PATENTS

14 March 2008

"Prior art" could raise a substantial new question of patentability


This week the Bodog online gambling group carried the fight to its adversary, 1st Technology in the patents tussle which has seen Bodog lose its domains and receive a multi-million dollar default judgement in the courts. In its latest move, Bodog has filed a petition for re-examination of patent No. 5,564,001, the patent at issue in the case.

The filing of such a request will not stop the 'harassment' of Bodog, a statement from the gambling group advises. "Even in the highly unlikely event that the patent emerges from the re-examination unscathed, if at all, it may not invalidate the default judgment that is currently in place against the above-noted defendant," it adds before asking rhetorically "So, why do it?"

The answer comes from Bodog chief Calvin Ayre, a central figure in the increasingly acrimonious affair: "1st Technology and its founder, Scott Lewis, have preyed on our industry and others long enough. They count on organizations being forced to make the assessment of whether fighting a patent claim will cost more than to simply settle it. They say their patents are valid. They say their claims are legitimate. Well, it's time to prove it."

A patent re-examination is a process in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is advised of the existence of "prior art" that raises a "substantial new question of patentability".

"Prior art" simply means public information that may impact an assessment of whether the patented invention was valid. Since a patent is only properly granted when an invention is genuinely novel and unobvious, if invalidating prior art exists, then a patent granted with respect to that invention is not valid. True inventors with legitimate patents have absolutely nothing to fear from a petition for re-examination.

"We have communicated repeatedly that the Bodog business is simply not the entity against whom 1st Technology has secured its judgment," says Ayre. "Through what was essentially inadvertence, Bodog did not transfer the registrations out of this supplier when the supplier ceased doing business. That was Bodog's oversight and it cost the business those domains; however, the harassment continues, as 1st Technology intentionally uses the subpoena process to hound and attempt to intimidate suppliers and business partners.

"The petition filed in respect of the No. 5,564,001 patent may not stop this harassment, but at least it will require that the patent be tested before it can be used as a weapon against others."

The Bodog statement goes on to disclose that court records suggest that Scott Lewis and his related licensing companies currently have pending litigation against Playtech, Parlay Entertainment, Tiltware, Electronic Arts, Viacom, Microsoft, Betcorp, Giga Media, Harmonic Systems, Grand Virtual, Cambridge Interactive Development, Ultranet Internet Media, Lasseters, Leisure and Gaming, IQ-Ludorum, and Kolyma.

"We intend to review every patent being used by licensors that abuse the patent system in the guise of representing legitimate inventors," says Ayre.

"Through no fault of its own, the USPTO is under-funded and overwhelmed and we have the resources to support the research into whether these patents should have been issued in the first place. We intend to fund and seek re-examination after re-examination of invalid patents, and we encourage others that have received demand letters offering to license these technologies under threat of litigation to join us. Acting independently, the settlement math almost always favors the aggressor, but together we can turn the hunters into the hunted."

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa