Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LLC v. Marks

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 5, 2019

HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, f/k/a PTT, LLC, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
DANIEL MARKS, an individual; JOSEPH MASCI, an individual; BRIAN KAVANAGH, an individual; MARKS STUDIOS, LLC, an entity d/b/a GIMME GAMES; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an entity; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, an entity; ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an entity; PRODUCT MADNESS, INC., an entity; GRANT BOLLING, an individual; JOHN SMITHs 1-7; and XYZ COMPANIES 1-7, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

          ORDER & OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER

          DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D J. (Ret.) Special Master

         This matter comes before the Special Master upon Plaintiff High 5 Games, LLC's ("H5G") motion to compel discovery of technical information relating to accused instrumentalities from defendants Daniel Marks, Joseph Masci, Brain Kavanagh, Grant Boiling, Marks Studios, LLC ("Marks Studios"), Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. ("ATI"), Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. ("ATA"), Aristocrat Leisure Limited ("ALL"), and Product Madness, Inc. ("Product Madness")(collectively, "Defendants"). After considering the submissions of the parties, based upon the following, it is the opinion of the Special Master that H5G's motion is GRANTED.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Background

         This is a trade secret misappropriations and patent infringement case. On November 26, 2013, HSG filed its initial Complaint alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract. H5G asserted that Marks, Masci, and Kavanagh breached their contractual obligations to H5G by utilizing H5G's confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information relating to its "Super Symbols" and "Super Stacks" games. H5G further alleged that Gimmie, Marks, Masci, and Kavanagh used H5G's confidential information relating to the Super Symbol and Super Stacks games and then unfairly competed with H5G by creating, marketing, and selling games to companies in the gaming industry, including Aristocrat, under the "Mega Symbols" and "Max Stacks" names.

         On July 1, 2014, H5G filed its First Amended Complaint, which added a patent infringement claim against Aristocrat, claiming infringement of U.S Patent No. 8, 734, 223 (the '"223 patent"). The '223 patent was issued on May 27, 2014, and covers H5G's "Super Symbols" feature.

         On January 24, 2017, H5G was granted leave to file its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which was based on the production of 500, 000 documents in October, 2016. This amendment added certain trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition claims, as well as patent infringement claims relating to a second patent, U.S Patent No. 9, 022, 852 (the '"852 patent"). The '852 patent covers H5G's "Super Stacks" feature.

         H5G now asserts that while it has long accused dozens of games of infringement, during discovery it learned that Aristocrat offers other games (the "Undisclosed Games") that also incorporate the accused features that had not been previously disclosed by Defendants. By correspondence dated April 30, 2018, H5G informed Defendants that it had become aware that Defendants own, operate, license, and/or sell games with infringing features that had not been disclosed in Defendants' discovery responses. H5G then provided Defendants with a list of 87 Undisclosed Games that it believed appeared to include the infringing features.

         On May 9, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Mark Falk granted H5G's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").[1] The TAC added new parties that are related to defendant Aristocrat. On May 29, 2018, H5G served additional interrogatories and requests for production. The requests sought identification of all of Defendants' games containing the accused features. H5G also requested technical information related to the Undisclosed Games. On July 10, 2018, H5G served similar discovery requests on the TAC Defendants. Defendants objected to H5G's discovery requests as beyond the scope of the litigation. The parties then exchanged several correspondences.

         Following this exchange, the parties submitted papers to the Special Master regarding H5G's request to serve Infringement Contentions based on the TAC and whether the new TAC Defendants had to participate in discovery pending the District Court's decision on Defendants' appeal. On September 14, 2018, the Special Master denied Defendants' request for a stay as to Infringement Contentions and discovery with respect to the new TAC Defendants and ordered Plaintiff to serve Infringement Contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3.1 and 3.2.

         Thereafter, on October 8, 2018, H5G served its Infringement Contentions on the TAC Defendants and on October 9, 2018, filed a motion to amend its infringement contentions against the SAC Defendants. H5G maintains that it accused the Undisclosed Games of infringement in these Infringement Contentions.

         The parties appeared for a status conference before the Special Master on November 6, 2018. At the conference, the Special Master instructed Defendants to produce their outstanding discovery within 30 days. On December 6, 2018, Defendants produced additional discovery. However, H5G alleges that this production failed to include discovery relating to nearly all of the Undisclosed Games.

         On or about February 8, 2019, H5G filed a motion to compel discovery of technical information relating to accused instrumentalities with the Special Master. H5G seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide complete responses to all interrogatories and requests for production, including source code, related to the Undisclosed Games.

         II. Arguments ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.