Exercise and Gambling Don't Mix According to EDVA Judge
There are many patents awarded for inventions that may well be “new” but it is debatable whether they are “useful.” A recent Eastern District of Virginia case dealt with one such invention – a device that combined exercise equipment with a gambling device – which presumably allows a user to lose pounds and money at the same time. Fitness Gaming Corp. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90605 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2011) (Hilton, J.), found here.
The patent at issue in Fitness Gaming was “directed to the combination of an electronic game of chance device and a piece of exercise equipment.” The patentee asserted that the defendant’s exercise bikes infringed its patents because they included a game console that allowed a user to play games like “Blackjack” and “Texas Hold ‘Em” while exercising.
Throughout the specification and prosecution history, however, the patentee had expressly equated an “electronic game of chance device” with a “legalized gambling device” that involved a wager. The inventor also distinguished video-type arcade games that did not involve gambling.
The accused products, on the other hand, were played with “credits” which have no value, the accused product did not accept coins or tokens, and the products did not pay any money to the user.
Combining claim construction and an infringement analysis, Judge Hilton held that the specification and prosecution history clearly limited an “electronic game of chance” to a “legal gambling device” that accepted a wager and permitted a payout in the form of money. Since the accused products did not either accept money or pay money, they could not infringe, and Judge Hilton granted summary judgment to the defendant.
Fitness Gaming breaks no new ground on either claim construction or infringement but is a helpful case for accused infringers where an inventor has limited her invention through statements in the specification and especially in the prosecution history.
