Interactive Games v. DraftKings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Interactive Games LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: DraftKings Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Lando & Anastasi, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-11544, D. Mass., 04/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant DraftKings has a regular and established place of business in the District, namely its Boston headquarters where its mobile applications are allegedly developed in part, and has committed acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's mobile applications for sports betting, casino games, and fantasy sports infringe five U.S. patents related to foundational technologies for mobile gambling, including device security, user location verification, and on-screen content formatting.
• Technical Context: The patents address technical challenges that arose in the mid-2000s to enable secure and legally compliant gambling on user-controlled smartphones, a market that has since grown into a multi-billion dollar industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of interaction between the parties, including a 2014 letter from Plaintiff's predecessor notifying Defendant of its patent portfolio. It also references prior litigation filed in 2019 against Defendant asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,974,302. Notably, the complaint states that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition for inter partes review of the '302 patent and that an ex parte reexamination subsequently upheld all claims and added new ones, which may influence arguments regarding the patent's validity.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,409,382 - "Smart Phone With Wrapper Application That Checks Whether the Smart Phone May Use a Gambling Application"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the early era of smartphones, enabling mobile gambling was technologically difficult because the devices were user-controlled and could be "rooted" or "jailbroken" to circumvent security, spoof location data, and violate gambling regulations Compl. ¶¶1, 21, 27 This created significant security and compliance risks Compl. ¶28
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where a primary "wrapper" application verifies the integrity of the smartphone before allowing a separate gambling application to run Compl. ¶53 This verification process involves determining that the device is not running unapproved processes or applications and that its operating system is an approved version, thereby confirming the device has not been tampered with (Compl. ¶53, Compl. ¶¶55-56; '382 Patent, Compl. ¶claim 1). An exemplary verification process is depicted in the patent's Figure 3 Compl. ¶57
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method to ensure regulatory compliance and security across a fractured market of different mobile devices, which was a critical step in making mobile gambling commercially and legally feasible Compl. ¶¶53, 58

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-26 and 29 of the '382 Patent Compl. ¶144 Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A smart phone comprising a memory and at least one processor configured to execute a wrapper application and a gambling application.
  • The wrapper application is configured to determine that the smart phone is authorized to use the gambling service by performing three checks:
    • determining that the smart phone is not running an unapproved process;
    • determining that the smart phone does not have an unapproved application installed; and
    • determining that an operating system running on the smart phone is approved for use with the gambling service.
  • In response to the determination of authorization, the wrapper application enables a user of the smart phone to gamble using the gambling application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but asserts a broad range of claims Compl. ¶144

U.S. Patent No. 8,974,302 - "Multi-Process Communication Regarding Gaming Information"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, technologies for determining a smartphone's location-such as GPS, Wi-Fi, and cellular triangulation-were often unreliable, imprecise, or suffered from limitations like high battery consumption and cost Compl. ¶¶34, 36-38 This made it difficult to continuously ensure a user remained within a legally permitted gambling jurisdiction, especially near state borders Compl. ¶38
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a system that repeatedly checks a device's location, with the time interval between checks being dynamically determined by the device's location relative to a jurisdictional boundary Compl. ¶¶39, 61 For example, location checks become more frequent as a user's device gets closer to a state line, balancing the need for accuracy with the costs of frequent checking '302 Patent, 49:31-61 The system also incorporates checks to ensure the device has not been jailbroken, which could allow location spoofing Compl. ¶67
• Technical Importance: This technology provided an efficient, dynamic method for managing location compliance, which was crucial for mitigating the technical limitations and regulatory risks of mobile gambling Compl. ¶69

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-17, 19-24, 26, and 28-40 of the '302 Patent Compl. ¶154 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • An apparatus with a machine-readable medium storing instructions for a processor.
  • Determine that a mobile device is authorized to use a gaming service.
  • Determine that a user of the mobile device is authorized to use the gaming service.
  • Determine the device is associated with a first location where gaming is allowed.
  • Allow gaming activity based on the above determinations.
  • Determine a period of time for the next location check based on the distance of the first location from a boundary.
  • After that period, determine whether the device is associated with a second location where gaming is allowed.
• The complaint asserts a wide range of both independent and dependent claims Compl. ¶154

U.S. Patent No. 12,548,404 - "Multi-Level Device Verification for Mobile Gambling Applications"

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the unreliability of any single location-determination technology by claiming a hierarchical, "multi-level" approach Compl. ¶¶74-75 The system first attempts to determine location using a primary method, such as GPS, and if that method is insufficient or fails (e.g., indoors), it uses a secondary method, such as cellular triangulation, to ensure precision Compl. ¶¶75, 77
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20, 21, and 23-27 Compl. ¶165
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that DraftKings' Mobile Apps, which must implement location tracking, incorporate these hierarchical location-determination solutions Compl. ¶100

U.S. Patent No. 12,400,518 - "System for Facilitating Online Wagering With Nearby Mobile Phones"

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses technological challenges in securely facilitating peer-to-peer gambling Compl. ¶¶41, 80 The invention is directed to identifying nearby mobile device users via radio frequency (RF) signals, such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, and enabling wagers based on this proximity, particularly where the users already know each other to maintain privacy Compl. ¶¶42-44, 84
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-21 and 24 Compl. ¶175
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges DraftKings' Mobile Apps, such as its peer-to-peer "Pick6" application, incorporate these proximity-based wagering solutions Compl. ¶¶100, 118

U.S. Patent No. 12,406,284 - "Mobile Device Proximity Tracking For Selective Content Delivery and Formatting"

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of displaying advertisements on a wide variety of mobile device screens without disrupting the primary gameplay Compl. ¶¶46, 87 The invention involves a system that receives "low priority data" (e.g., an advertisement), identifies an area of the user interface where it will not interfere with "high priority data" (e.g., the game), and automatically reformats the advertisement to fit the identified area Compl. ¶¶49, 91
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-4, 8, 10-14, 16-23, and 25-28 Compl. ¶185
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that DraftKings' Mobile Apps incorporate these advertising and content-formatting solutions Compl. ¶100

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "DraftKings' Mobile Apps," which include at least the iOS and Android versions of DraftKings Sportsbook & Casino, DraftKings Casino, Golden Nugget Online Casino, DraftKings Fantasy Sports, DraftKings Pick6, and DK Horse Racing & Betting Compl. ¶2 These services are also accessible via DraftKings' websites Compl. ¶2
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused apps provide digital sports entertainment and gaming services, including online sports betting, daily fantasy sports, and online casino games Compl. ¶2 A crucial technical function alleged in the complaint is the implementation of location tracking for each user's device to comply with state-specific gambling regulations Compl. ¶¶99, 127 The complaint alleges DraftKings embeds location-verifying routines from a third-party, GeoComply Solutions Inc., for this purpose Compl. ¶128 The complaint provides a map showing the numerous states in which DraftKings offers its online sports betting services, including Massachusetts Compl. ¶11

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'382 Patent Infringement Allegations

'302 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding device integrity checks for the '382 Patent are based on "information and belief" Compl. ¶3 A central question will be what factual evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant's apps perform the specific claimed steps of checking for "unapproved" processes and applications, rather than more general security measures.
• Claim Scope and Infringement: For the '302 Patent, a key issue may be whether the functionality of the third-party GeoComply service, as used by Defendant, meets the claim limitation of determining a "period of time... based on the distance... from a boundary." The allegation that checks are "more often" near a border Compl. ¶132 suggests a relationship, but the precise nature of that relationship will be critical for determining infringement.
• Direct Infringement Doctrine: The complaint's infringement theory for location services relies heavily on the use of a third-party vendor, GeoComply Compl. ¶128 This raises the question of whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant "directs or controls" the performance of every claimed step by GeoComply, which is a requirement for finding direct infringement under current case law.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"unapproved process" / "unapproved application" (['382 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:5))

• Context and Importance: These terms are central to the '382 Patent's infringement theory. The scope of these terms will define the specific software behavior Plaintiff must prove. Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to applications known to enable cheating or if it covers any application not on an explicit "approved" list.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 does not limit the "unapproved" status to any particular type of process or application, which may support a construction covering anything not explicitly authorized.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses these checks in the context of preventing "jailbreaking, rooting, and location spoofing" '382 Patent, 24:3-10 This context suggests the possibility that "unapproved" could be construed more narrowly to mean processes or applications related to circumventing security or regulations.

"period of time... based on... a distance" ('302 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core inventive concept of dynamic location-check frequency. The infringement analysis for the '302 Patent will turn on whether the accused system's functionality meets this "based on" requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "based on" is generally given a broad meaning. This may support a construction where any functional relationship between distance and check frequency, including a simple two-tiered system (e.g., one frequency for "near" a border and another for "far"), would suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention as a way to "balance costs, battery life, and accuracy" '302 Patent, 36:44-51 Compl. ¶69 This goal of optimization might support a narrower construction requiring a more graduated or sophisticated relationship between distance and timing, rather than a simple binary switch.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five asserted patents. The factual basis includes Defendant's alleged marketing, providing user support and instructions on its websites, requiring users to activate geolocation services, and making the apps available for download on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store Compl. ¶¶148, 159, 169, 179, 189
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five asserted patents. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on multiple events: a 2014 notice letter from Plaintiff's predecessor to Defendant concerning its patent portfolio Compl. ¶139; a prior patent infringement lawsuit filed in 2019 asserting the '302 patent against Defendant Compl. ¶157; and a pre-suit notice letter sent on April 1, 2026, detailing infringement of all asserted patents Compl. ¶141

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate, beyond "information and belief," that Defendant's mobile applications technically perform the specific device-integrity checks recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,409,382, such as searching for "unapproved processes" and comparing them against a list, as opposed to employing other general security measures?
• A key question of claim scope and functionality will be: does the accused location-checking system, which allegedly performs checks "more often" near a state border, meet the "based on... a distance" limitation of U.S. Patent No. 8,974,302? This will likely require a detailed technical comparison of how the accused system's timing algorithm functions relative to the patent's claims.
• A significant legal question will be one of agency and control: given the complaint's assertion that Defendant relies on a third-party vendor (GeoComply) for location services, can Plaintiff establish that Defendant directs or controls every step of the claimed methods performed by that vendor, as is required to prove direct infringement?