Utherverse Gaming LLC v. Epic Games Inc

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 6

7 UTHERVERSE GAMING LLC, Case No. C21-799-RSM 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADDRESSING QUESTION 3 OF 10 v.

12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ supplemental briefing with regard to 15 Question 3 of the Verdict Form. See Dkts. #471, #476, and #477. 16 At the conclusion of trial, after the jurors were excused, the Court issued a ruling as to 17 the question of patent invalidity for obviousness—Question 2 of the Verdict Form—based on 18 19 an advisory jury opinion. The parties then indicated that the Court should issue a similar ruling 20 as to Question 3 – patent eligibility. The Court requested supplemental briefing. 21 The determination of patent eligibility is governed by the two-part test outlined in Alice 22 Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Dkt. #49 (“Report 23 and Recommendation”) at 11. The Court has previously applied the Alice framework and 24 25 found that 1) the asserted claims of the ’605 Patent are directed to an abstract idea and 2) 26 factual questions in the second part of the Alice test precluded a judgment of invalidity on the 27 28 pleadings. Dkt. #49 at 21–23; see also Dkt #57 (“Order Adopting Report and 1 2 Recommendation”). This is why the issue went to the jury. 3 The parties appear to disagree as to whether Question 3 resulted in an advisory jury 4 opinion or simply a jury verdict answering a factual question that the Court can then plug into 5 its prior legal rulings. See Dkts. #476 and #477. The Court finds that the outcome below 6 would be the same either way, and any confusion about the advisory nature of the jury’s verdict 7 8 was harmless. 9 The jury found “yes” to the question of whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the 10 elements of claim 2 of the ‘605 Patent “involved only technology that was well-understood, 11 routine, and conventional as of August 12, 2014.” Dkt. #473 at 4. For claims 5 and 8, the jury 12 13 answered “no.” Id. 14 The Court finds that the jury’s response to Question 3 conclusively answers the above 15 remaining Alice factual questions and that there is no basis in law or the record for the Court to 16 come to different factual findings or to overturn any prior legal conclusions. The result is a 17 finding that claim 2 is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. That the jury answered 18 19 differently for claims 5 and 8 is not inconsistent with the record. 20 Accordingly, having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the 21 Court hereby finds and ORDERS that judgment should be entered consistent with the jury’s 22 verdict in this case. 23 DATED this 27th day of May, 2025. 24 25 A 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28