In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Court granted motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, invalidating two patents related to software for detecting cheating in the card game bridge. The ruling underscores the ongoing challenges for software patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly those involving data collection and analysis. The court applied the two-step Alice framework to find the patents directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept, highlighting the limits of patenting mathematical techniques even in niche applications.
Background
This case centers on patents for technology designed to detect cheating in bridge, a trick-taking card game with over 165,000 professional members in North America. Plaintiff, The EDGAR Association (“EDGAR”), owns and developed a competing system called EDGAR (Everyone Deserves a Game Above Reproach), which uses data analysis to generate reports on potential cheating. EDGAR filed suit seeking declaratory judgments that U.S. Patent Nos. 11,014,005 (the “‘005 Patent”) and 11,439,912 (the “‘912 Patent”)—owned by Defendants Nicolas Hammond and Hammond Software, Inc. (collectively, the “Hammond Defendants”)—are invalid and not infringed.
The ‘005 Patent, titled “Detecting Cheating and Changes in Playing Ability in Partial Knowledge and Trick-Taking Games,” issued on May 25, 2021, contains 20 claims, including three independent claims. The ‘912 Patent, a continuation of the ‘005 Patent, issued on September 13, 2022, shares a substantially identical specification. Both patents claim methods, systems, and computer equipment for detecting cheating by: (1) acquiring board data from bridge games (e.g., hand records, table results, contracts, and declarers); (2) determining performance values for players; (3) detecting deviations by comparing values against thresholds based on past cheating or optimal behavior; and (4) alerting administrators via electronic message.
EDGAR alleged that the patents improperly monopolize the use of computers to analyze bridge players’ behavior against historical data using statistical techniques. In response, Hammond Software counterclaimed for infringement of the ‘912 Patent, seeking damages, treble damages for willfulness, fees, and an injunction. The counterclaim highlighted a history of disputes with the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), including allegations that EDGAR misappropriated Hammond’s ideas after negotiations.
EDGAR moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) as to invalidity, relying solely on § 101. The district court ruled without requiring claim construction, consistent with Federal Circuit precedent allowing § 101 resolutions at the pleadings stage.
Key Issues in the Decision
The district court’s analysis focused on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which excludes laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from patentability. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step test from Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the district court treated Claim 10 of the patents as representative, as all claims were substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.
Step One: Directed to an Abstract Idea
The court determined that the patents are directed to the abstract idea of “gathering and analyzing information” and “merely presenting the results,” citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims involve acquiring data, determining values, detecting deviations, and alerting users—essentially “nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results,” akin to the ineligible claims in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The court rejected Hammond Software’s argument that the patents provide a “technical solution necessarily rooted in computer technology.” It distinguished cases like CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (involving a physical device for cardiac monitoring), SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (improving computer network functionality), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific rules for 3-D animation). Here, the patents do not improve computer functionality but use generic computers as tools for statistical analysis. The court emphasized that novelty alone does not confer eligibility, even if the method is “groundbreaking” in detecting online cheating.
Step Two: No Inventive Concept
Proceeding to Alice Step Two, the court found no “inventive concept” transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The patents rely on generic components like a “processor” and “computer-readable medium,” without requiring unique hardware or improving computer technology itself, as in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The statistical methods draw from well-known probability theories applied in other fields, using commonly available data (e.g., player hands and results).
The court dismissed arguments that the method’s applicability to online games (where physical observation is impossible) or its complexity (beyond manual performance) adds inventiveness, citing FairWarning IP for the proposition that computer efficiency does not alter eligibility. It also noted that granting the patents would monopolize statistical analysis in bridge cheating detection, preempting innovation.
Implications for Patent Practice
This ruling reinforces the Federal Circuit’s strict application of § 101 to software patents involving data analysis, even in specialized domains like gaming. Patent drafters should emphasize specific technological improvements—such as novel hardware integrations or non-generic algorithms—to survive early challenges. For litigators, it highlights the viability of § 101 motions at the pleadings stage, potentially streamlining invalidity disputes without discovery or claim construction.
In the context of emerging technologies like AI-driven analytics in esports or online gaming, this decision serves as a cautionary tale: abstract mathematical models, no matter how innovative in application, risk invalidation if they lack a transformative inventive step. Clients developing similar detection systems should consult with patent counsel to ensure claims are drafted with concrete, non-abstract elements.
The EDGAR Association v. Hammond Software, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-04985-TRJ (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2025
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or at SGibson@jmbm.com.