Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche, et. al.
United States District Court for the
District of Nevada
Case No. 2:05-CV-0610-DAE-VCF, Filed May
16, 2005
This 2005 case is still pending in the Nevada District Court; it’s
scheduled for a hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on July 24,
Defendants’ filed the motion to have the case dismissed on the merits on
February 27, 2013.  This motion was filed
after Defendants produced database server information to Plaintiffs regarding their
online gambling business—Plaintiffs claim this information is necessary to
determine wagers made and the IP addresses for their clients to determine if
any were located in the United States.
Defendants had already moved for summary judgment, but were denied by a
magistrate judge until this information was produced.  After satisfying the magistrate judge’s
order, Defendants filed this new motion for summary judgment.
In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Defer
or Deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Allow Time to Complete
Discovery as well as a Preliminary Response to Defendants’ Summary Judgment
Motion on April 12, 2013.  Plaintiffs
claim two bases for the denial of the motion for summary judgment: 1) they have
not had the opportunity to properly perform substantial discovery which has
prevented a proper response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and 2)
based on the incomplete discovery records received, Plaintiff alleges that
there are an estimated 34,000 records of U.S.-based players which lends itself
to the possibility that the method patent was infringed.  Although this case was initially filed in May
of 2005, little to no discovery has been completed due to the court’s denial of
early discovery requests and Defendants’ alleged reticence in providing
requested discovery materials.
Plaintiffs therefore allege that they have not had the opportunity to
make a proper inquiry to defend against Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.  They go on to assert that,
even without complete data, there is compelling evidence to show that patent
infringement was taking place in the United States barring an award of summary
On May 17, 2013, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response.  They contend that they have produced the
discovery materials ordered by the court and should therefore be allowed to
move for dismissal.  Defendants go
further stating that, even if they have not properly produced the server data
in question, as a matter of law Plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed.  Defendants argue that in order to successfully
make an infringement claim on a method patent, all steps must have taken place
in the United States.  Since Plaintiff
concedes that Defendants’ servers are located in Costa Rica, Defendants’ argue
that not all steps of infringement have taken place in the United States.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim is invalid
and should be dismissed.
We will continue to monitor this case and provide any updates as they
become available.


California Judge Increases Settlement Amounts Available to Class Members in EA Football Game Class Action Suit
Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al.