The Federal Circuit Invalidates Planet Bingo Patents for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

Aug 27, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

Planet Bingo filed a patent infringement lawsuit against VKGS in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,398,646 and 6,656,045. The district court granted VSGS’s motion for summary judgment of non­infringement on the ground that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In a unanimous decision authored by Judge Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Planet Bingo patents are invalid because they preempt the abstract idea of playing bingo using a general purpose computer. The patents cover computerized method of storing bingo numbers, comparing them to the numbers selected by players and verifying winning numbers. The Federal Circuit found that the patents cover nothing more than an abstract idea because “managing the game of bingo consists of mental steps which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper.” The Federal Circuit noted that abstract ideas can be patent­eligible if the patent involves an “inventive concept” under Alice Corporation, but the Federal Circuit declined to find that Planet Bingo’s patents met this standard.

In rejecting Planet Bingo’s argument that its computerized system is not abstract because it can store “literally thousands, if not millions” of bingo numbers that a human could not remember, the Federal Circuit noted that the patents do not teach anything about storing millions of numbers, and only mention comparing one set of stored numbers with numbers selected by a player. Because “the claims fall short of capturing an invention that

necessarily handles ‘thousands, if not millions’ of bingo numbers or players,” the Federal Circuit declined to address whether a claimed invention requiring that many transactions “might tip the scales of patent eligibility.”

Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, No. 2013­1663 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.