Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC, POM OF
PENNSYLVANIA, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC, PA COIN HOLDINGS,
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-1073
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania in No. 3:19-cv-01470-JPW,
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson.
______________________
Decided: March 21, 2024
______________________
STEVEN G. HILL, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton LLP, At-
lanta, GA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also repre-
sented by DAVID KEELER LUDWIG.
JOHN V. GORMAN, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Phil-
adelphia, PA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre-
sented by JULIE S. GOLDEMBERG; AMY M. DUDASH,
Wilmington, DE.
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 03/21/2024
2 SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC
______________________
Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
Savvy Dog Systems, LLC and POM of Pennsylvania,
LLC (collectively, “Savvy Dog”) appeal from the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylva-
nia’s summary judgment holding the asserted claims of
U.S. Patent No. 7,736,223 ineligible for patenting under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Because we agree with the district court’s
conclusion, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
I
“Tic-Tac-Fruit” is an electronic game in the prior art
where—like tic-tac-toe—a player wins by having three
symbols of the same type in a row. A game processor sets
up the game by populating a three-by-three grid filled with
symbols, selecting the winning combination(s), testing the
display to ensure that the player cannot obtain a more val-
uable winning outcome than the outcome determined by
the game, and then displaying the grid to the player. The
player then selects a “symbol to be replaced with a ‘Wild
Card’ to obtain a winning game outcome.” J.A. 1485. Fig-
ures 1A and 1B show the game display before and after a
“Wild Card” is placed by a user.
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 03/21/2024
SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC 3
’223 patent Figs. 1A, 1B. In the prior art version of Tic-
Tac-Fruit (“prior art Tic-Tac-Fruit”), the grid generation
and testing occur after the player committed to playing.
Appellants’ Br. 5 (citing J.A. 1510–11 (Harrigan Depo.
at 112:5–113:8)).
To address the rise in electronic gambling games, Ohio
prohibited gambling games but permitted “skill-based”
games, i.e., where “the outcome of play during the game
must be controlled by the person playing the game and not
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 03/21/2024
4 SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC
by predetermined odds or random chance controlled by the
machine.” ’223 patent col. 1 ll. 21–30.
The ’223 patent, entitled “Electronic Gaming Method
and System Having Preview Screen,” purports to be a more
skill-based and less chance-based implementation of the
prior art Tic-Tac-Fruit. See ’223 patent col. 3 ll. 59–63.
The abstract describes displaying the game field “to the
player as a preview for deciding whether or not to play the
displayed game.” ’223 patent Abstract, col. 1 ll. 15–17. Un-
like the prior art Tic-Tac-Fruit, the invention described in
the ’223 patent previews the game to the player before the
player commits to playing the game. ’223 patent col. 9
ll. 56–64; see Appellants’ Br. 6; J.A. 1509–11 (Harrigan
Depo. at 111:23–113:23). According to Savvy Dog, this pre-
view reduces the role of chance in relation to the role of skill
because “[t]he player would play the displayed game know-
ing the outcome.” ’223 patent col. 11 ll. 23–25; see Appel-
lants’ Br. 13.
Representative claim 44 of the ’223 patent recites:
44. An electronic gaming system comprising:
an electronic game terminal including a
touch screen display;
a game processor for generating an interac-
tive electronic game on the game terminal,
the game processor configured for:
constructing a field having a plurality of el-
ements for the interactive game display
wherein each element includes a game
symbol from a plurality of predetermined
game symbols;
determining at least one winning combina-
tion for each play of the game;
testing the game field prior to displaying
the game to the player to ensure that a
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 03/21/2024
SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC 5
winning combination more valuable than
the determined winning combination is not
generated inadvertently in completing the
field;
automatically displaying an actual game to
be played on the touch screen game display
to a player prior to initiating activation of
game play;
determining if the player has decided to
play the displayed game; and
displaying an outcome resulting from play
of the displayed game.
’223 patent col. 16 l. 46–col. 17 l. 2.
II
Savvy Dog filed suit against Pennsylvania Coin, LLC
and PA Coin Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Appellees”) in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania for allegedly infringing
certain claims of the ’223 patent.
Appellees moved to dismiss, arguing—among other
things—that the asserted claims of the ’223 patent were
directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
After reviewing representative claim 44’s language, the
parties’ arguments, and case law, the district court “con-
clude[d] that claim 44 describes the rules for playing a
game, and is thus an abstract idea within the meaning of
Alice step one.” Savvy Dog Sys., LLC v. Penn. Coin, LLC,
No. 3:19-cv-01470, 2020 WL 1550676, at *4–6 (M.D. Pa.
Apr. 1, 2020) (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 218 (2014)). The district court, however, de-
nied the motion to dismiss because “[w]hether the technol-
ogy embedded into the game processor is an improvement
and ‘inventive concept’ is a question of fact that the court
cannot determine at this early stage of litigation.” Id.
at *8.
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 03/21/2024
6 SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC
During claim construction, the district court construed
the claim limitation “an actual game to be played” to mean
“the constructed game field of the game to be played.”
Savvy Dog Sys., LLC v. Penn. Coin, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-
01470, 2020 WL 7488878, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2020)
(Claim Construction Op.).
Appellees later filed a motion for summary judgment,
again arguing that the asserted claims were patent ineligi-
ble under § 101. For Alice step one, the district court relied
on its previous analysis from its motion to dismiss ruling.
Savvy Dog Sys., LLC v. Penn. Coin, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-
01470, 2022 WL 4349829, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2022)
(Summary Judgment Op.). The district court then deter-
mined for Alice step two that none of the claimed elements
of claim 44 individually, or in an ordered combination,
transformed the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Id. at *9. The district court accordingly granted Appellees’
motion for summary judgment.
Savvy Dog appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We apply regional circuit law when reviewing a district
court’s grant of summary judgment. C R Bard Inc. v. An-
gioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Applying Third Circuit law, we review the district court’s
grant of summary judgment de novo. Id. (citing Acumed
v. Adv. Surgical Servs., 561 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)).
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genu-
ine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is enti-
tled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
see C R Bard, 979 F.3d at 1378.
Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that
may involve underlying questions of fact. See Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d
1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We review the district court’s
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 03/21/2024
SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC 7
ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo. See In-
tell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332,
1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court established a
two-step test to determine whether a claim is eligible for
patenting under § 101. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. For
Alice step one, we must assess whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of na-
ture, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Id. at 217. If
the answer is yes, we proceed to Alice step two to consider
the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered
combination, to determine whether these elements contain
an “inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature
of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 217–
18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73, 78 (2012)). With Alice step
two, we must determine whether the claims recite addi-
tional features that are more than “well-understood, rou-
tine, conventional activity” to render the claims eligible for
patenting. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79–80.
Addressing Alice step one, the district court character-
ized claim 44 of the ’223 patent as being directed to “rules
for playing a game.” Summary Judgment Op., 2022 WL
4349829, at *4. Savvy Dog contends that claim 44 is actu-
ally directed to “a novel gaming terminal architecture” that
previews the game “before the player commits to play the
game, thereby elevating skill and lessening the role of
chance in the game.” Appellants’ Br. 23 (emphasis omit-
ted); see also Appellants’ Br. 17.
Whether viewed as being directed to a set of rules for
playing a game or to a game previewed to the player before
committing to playing, we agree with the district court that
claim 44 is directed to an abstract idea. We have found
similar game implementations to be patent ineligible. See,
e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818–19 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(concluding that the claimed “method of conducting a wa-
gering game” was directed to an abstract idea); In re Marco
Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 8 Filed: 03/21/2024
8 SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding the claimed “method of playing
a dice game” was directed to an abstract idea).
Even if claim 44 is viewed as being directed to display-
ing the game field before the player commits to play the
game, claim 44 is not directed to a technological solution to
a technological problem. Notably, the specification does
not describe “overcoming some sort of technical difficulty”
in displaying the preview of the game before player com-
mitment. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., ’223 patent col. 11 l. 65–
col. 12 l. 20. For example, the disclosed processor is merely
a means for setting up and playing the game. See, e.g., ’223
patent col. 2 ll. 28–45 (“A game processor generates an
electronic game display on a game terminal . . . .”); id. at
col. 4 ll. 40–43. The specification “never suggests” that the
processor “is improved from a technical perspective, or that
it would operate differently than it otherwise could.”
ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768.
Indeed, the invention is directed to a concept for over-
coming the legal obstacles discussed in the Background
section of the patent rather than providing a technological
solution to a technological problem. See ’223 patent col. 1
ll. 18–60. Although Savvy Dog argues that the invention
solves this legal or business problem by elevating skill and
lessening chance, the purported solution is not a technolog-
ical one. Rather the purported elevation in the player’s
skill is due to when the game field is displayed, not how it
is displayed. Stated differently, nothing in the claim or the
specification describes a new technological way of display-
ing. The idea of displaying before a player starts the
game—instead of after the player starts the game—is ab-
stract. Accordingly, even under Savvy Dog’s characteriza-
tion of what the claim is directed to, claim 44 is directed to
an abstract idea.
Turning to Alice step two, we agree with the district
court’s determination that the additional claim elements of
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 9 Filed: 03/21/2024
SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC 9
claim 44 “fail[ed] to contain an inventive concept” to trans-
form the claim into a patent-eligible application. Summary
Judgment Op., 2022 WL 4349829, at *5–6. Savvy Dog as-
serts that the testing of the game field and the automatic
previewing of the actual game to be played, whether indi-
vidually or as an ordered combination, are inventive con-
cepts. Appellants’ Br. 33–34.
We determine that these steps are abstract ideas them-
selves—whether viewed as part of a set of rules for playing
a game or part of a game previewed to the player before
committing to playing—and thus cannot be an inventive
concept under Alice step two. BSG Tech LLC
v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s
use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot
supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
After identifying the abstract idea at Alice step one, we
are to consider what remains in the claims at Alice step
two. Id. at 1290. Here, all that remain are generic and
conventional computer components (e.g., a gaming termi-
nal and touch screen display) that are used in a routine and
conventional way. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is
the application of an abstract idea using conventional and
well-understood techniques, the claim has not been trans-
formed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract
idea.” Id. at 1290–91.
For the above reasons, we conclude that representative
claim 44 is directed to an abstract idea and that “the par-
ticular elements of the claim, considered both individually
and as an ordered combination,” fail to “transform the na-
ture of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” TecSec,
Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(quotations and citations omitted). We therefore affirm the
Case: 23-1073 Document: 37 Page: 10 Filed: 03/21/2024
10 SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC
district court’s summary judgment that the asserted claims
of the ’223 patent are ineligible for patenting. 1
CONCLUSION
We have considered Savvy Dog’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Because the district court
correctly concluded that the ’223 patent claims are directed
to ineligible subject matter, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
1 Savvy Dog also asserts on appeal that the district
court erred in its construction of the term “an actual game
to be played.” See Claim Construction Op., 2020 WL
7488878, at *9. As acknowledged by Savvy Dog’s counsel,
we need not address this claim construction issue because
we agree with the district court’s § 101 analysis. See Oral
Arg. at 1:00–1:10, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/
default.aspx?fl=23-1073_03042024.mp3.