AML IP LLC v. CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP

Case Overview and Background

On April 17, 2026, AML IP LLC, a Texas-based patent assertion entity (PAE), filed a patent infringement lawsuit against CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP, the operating company for the Chuck E. Cheese and Peter Piper Pizza restaurant chains. AML IP is a non-practicing entity that has engaged in numerous litigation campaigns to monetize its portfolio of e-commerce patents, frequently targeting retailers and online businesses. CEC Entertainment is a nationally recognized leader in family dining and entertainment. The lawsuit accuses CEC of infringing AML's patent covering electronic token systems, likely targeting the infrastructure behind CEC's sale and use of game tokens, "Play Pass" credits, or other digital value systems offered to customers for use in its venues.

The case centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, titled "Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The patent, filed in 2000, describes a system where a vendor issues and maintains its own electronic tokens, which customers can purchase and use for goods and services from that vendor without the need for a third-party financial institution to process the transaction. Notably, public patent records indicate the '838 patent expired in April 2020, meaning AML IP can only sue for alleged past damages rather than seek an injunction against future use. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Reed O'Connor, a prominent judge who has presided over numerous high-profile cases. The Northern District has become a more popular venue for patent litigation since the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision limited where plaintiffs can file suit.

This case is notable as it appears to be part of a new enforcement campaign by AML IP, which filed suits against other companies on the same day asserting the same '838 patent. The validity of the patent is likely to be a central issue. The '838 patent was previously criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which called it a "Stupid Patent of the Month" and argued it claimed the abstract and unpatentable idea of using tokens for commerce on the internet. This history strongly suggests that CEC Entertainment will likely file an early motion to dismiss the case, arguing the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between AML IP LLC and CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP is in its nascent stages, with no significant legal developments beyond the initial filing.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2026-04-17)

• Complaint: On April 17, 2026, AML IP LLC filed its complaint against CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:26-cv-01249), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. The case was assigned to Judge Reed O'Connor. This action was part of a broader litigation campaign launched by AML IP, which filed suits against numerous other companies on the same day, asserting the same patent.
• Answer/Responsive Pleading: As of May 1, 2026, CEC Entertainment has not yet filed an answer or any other responsive pleading to the complaint. The deadline for such a filing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has not yet passed.

Pre-Trial Motions and Other Proceedings

• Motions: No substantive pre-trial motions, such as a motion to dismiss, have been filed by either party. Given the history of the '838 patent and its vulnerability to challenges on the grounds of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it is highly anticipated that CEC Entertainment may file an early motion to dismiss on these grounds.
• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been initiated against the '838 patent as of this date.

Current Posture and Outlook

The case remains active and is in the earliest phase of litigation. The next expected development is the filing of a responsive pleading by CEC Entertainment, which will likely set the strategic direction for the defense. Until then, no discovery, claim construction, or trial-related events have been scheduled.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, the following counsel have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, AML IP LLC. The legal team is consistent with counsel that has represented AML IP in prior litigation campaigns, indicating a continuation of their established strategy.

• Name: Stevenson Gillis

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Gillis & Mateschen, LLP (Dallas, TX)

• Note: Mr. Gillis is a founding partner of the firm and has a long history of representing patent assertion entities, including AML IP, in infringement campaigns across various Texas districts.

• Name: Daniel Mateschen

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: Gillis & Mateschen, LLP (Dallas, TX)

• Note: Mr. Mateschen frequently appears alongside Stevenson Gillis in patent cases and has represented non-practicing entities in numerous actions filed in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas.

• Name: Christina L. Williams

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Williams Law Group (Fort Worth, TX)

• Note: Ms. Williams often serves as local counsel for out-of-state firms and plaintiffs in the Northern District of Texas, providing expertise on local court rules and procedures.

No in-house counsel for AML IP LLC has entered an appearance, which is standard for a non-practicing entity. All initial filings, including the complaint, were submitted by lead counsel Stevenson Gillis.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP, has not yet filed a notice of appearance or any responsive pleading in this case. The docket for Case No. 3:26-cv-01249 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas does not currently list any attorneys representing the defendant.

The complaint was filed on April 17, 2026. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after being formally served with the complaint and summons. This period has likely not yet expired, which would explain the absence of an appearance by defense counsel.

Information on CEC Entertainment's in-house legal team and counsel from prior unrelated matters includes:

• Name: David Deck
• Role: In-House (EVP & General Counsel)
• Firm: CEC Entertainment
• Note: Mr. Deck is the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for CEC Entertainment and has been with the company for over 26 years, overseeing its intellectual property strategy. It is standard for in-house counsel to manage litigation by hiring outside law firms rather than appearing directly in court proceedings.

It is anticipated that outside counsel specializing in patent litigation will file a notice of appearance on behalf of CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP in the coming weeks. At that point, the defense team's composition will become public record.