Home 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, 2013.
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 judgment.
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.