Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors

Patent claims are construed purposively through the eyes of the skilled addressee, but deliberate claim limitations remain significant and there is no general doctrine of equivalents. “Gaming” does not necessarily mean gambling for real money where the claim and specification do not require external deposits, withdrawals or real-world accounts.

Obviousness concerns technical or practical obviousness, not merely commercial reluctance or market distrust. A claimed system implemented using known hardware, client/server architecture and ordinary distributed processing may be obvious even if commercial concerns would have discouraged its adoption. A disclosure anticipates only where performance necessarily entails infringement. Software implementing conventional gambling rules, without a relevant technical contribution, is excluded subject matter.

Cranway alleged that the defendants infringed European patent EP 0625760B1, concerning a remote interactive computer gaming system. The defendants denied infringement and challenged validity on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and excluded subject matter.

The patent claims concerned distributed processing between a host computer and remote terminal, secure communications, host-side game outcomes and account processing, and stored information enabling restoration or replay. The principal construction issues were whether the claims required gambling for real money, whether a hardware random-number generator satisfied the claims, and whether replay required sequential re-enactment. The court also considered anticipation by Rabbit Jack’s Casino, obviousness over Rabbit Jack’s and Mecca, computer-program and business-method exclusions, and secondary infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977.

1. Construction. The claims were construed purposively in context. They were not limited to gambling for real money. The references to gaming, account status and an opening balance did not require deposits from, or withdrawals to, the real world. The skilled team comprised computer software expertise, but not necessarily a gaming mathematician or casino operator.
2. The requirement for a terminal data packet representing a valid user response meant that responses were evaluated for validity before transmission. “Program means” generating random numbers included software controlling a hardware random-number generator, since the claimed process included bringing the numbers within preset criteria. Claim 5 required sequential re-enactment of game steps, or an action replay, rather than a single summary.
3. Novelty. Rabbit Jack’s Casino disclosed the relevant architecture and operation. A skilled software engineer using a standard debugger could discover the system’s communications and server-side processing through routine, uninventive work. The information was not confidential merely because the packets were encrypted. Claim 1 was therefore anticipated.
4. Obviousness. Applying the structured approach in Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA [2007] FSR 37, claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 were obvious over Rabbit Jack’s and, for the subsidiary claims, common general knowledge. The relevant question was technical obviousness. Commercial distrust of remote gambling did not constitute a technical prejudice limiting the skilled person’s technical horizons. The claims were not obvious over Mecca because that conclusion required discarding much of Mecca’s teaching.
5. Excluded subject matter. Applying Aerotel v Telco; Macrossan’s Application [2007] RPC 7, the contribution was either the business method of gambling for real money or a computer program as such. The identified technical-effect signposts were not satisfied.
6. Infringement and result. If valid, claim 1 would have been infringed, but claim 5 would not. Playtech’s section 60(2) defence based on supply through the Tote would have succeeded because the provision is directed to supply of essential means to a direct infringer. The defence that the supplied software had to be the identical copy used by the ultimate user failed. The patent was invalid.