US 11488451

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 11488451 from USPTO and the CAFC 2026 dockets.

The CAFC docket search returned nothing. Let me refine searches for the CAFC case and related PTAB/IPR proceedings.

Let me search for the CAFC appeal details and the USPTO record for the patent.

US Patent 11,488,451 (US11488451B2) — Summary

Bibliographic data

Sources: Google Patents record for US11488451B2; Patexia patent page. I did not directly query the USPTO Patent Center search interface, so bibliographic data is drawn from the Google Patents and third-party mirrors, which are consistent with one another.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method of selling pre-printed lottery tickets for random draw lotteries through the retailers POS without the use of additional lottery hardware. Pre-printed lottery tickets allow a consumer to purchase a lottery ticket for a subsequently occurring draw by including that ticket in their shopping basket. The pre-printed lottery ticket may be purchased as any other common product through the point of sale terminal. No specialized hardware such as lottery terminal, printer or dispensing device is necessary."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim (claim 1)

Claim 1 is a method performed by a third-party transaction processor (an intermediary, not the lottery itself) to activate a manufactured, pre-printed random-draw lottery ticket. In plain terms, the claimed method has three steps:

1. (a) Receive a request — the transaction processor receives, from a retailer's point-of-sale (POS) system, a transaction request to activate the pre-printed ticket. The ticket was picked by the customer before checkout and presented for activation during checkout. Importantly, the transaction processor handles requests from many different retailers (aggregation across retailers).
2. (b) Forward to the lottery — using a first secured communication, the transaction processor sends to the lottery administration system the ticket's unique identification information (derived from the pre-printed ticket information received from the POS) — and this all happens without any lottery hardware (no lottery terminal, printer, or specialized device at the store).
3. (c) Receive confirmation — via a second secured communication, the transaction processor receives from the lottery administration system an indication that draw information has been associated with the pre-printed ticket (i.e., the ticket has been activated for a future draw).

In substance: a customer grabs an off-the-shelf, pre-printed draw-lottery ticket like any grocery item; the cashier scans it at a normal POS; a third-party transaction processor relays the ticket's ID to the central lottery system over secure channels; and the lottery system confirms it has linked the ticket to draw numbers/date — all with no dedicated lottery terminal in the checkout lane. Notably, the pre-printed ticket itself is the legal instrument for validation/redemption, while the draw numbers/date may be printed only on the store receipt.

Litigation status (important, current as of search results)

• PTAB — IPR2024-00465 (Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.): Petition filed January 17, 2024 challenging all claims 1–24; institution July 24, 2024. The Board issued a final written decision (per Patexia, decision date October 1, 2025), but USPTO Director John Squires granted Director Review and terminated the proceeding in whole on October 1, 2025 (Paper 39), vacating the adverse final written decision based on unreliable/inconsistent petitioner expert testimony. Proceeding status: terminated. (Sources: Patexia IPR summary; ipverse.greyb.com; Banner Witcoff PTAB highlights; JD Supra.)
• CAFC — Case No. 26-1136 (Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): appeal filed November 6, 2025, from the PTO, status pending. Per a Bloomberg Law report dated May 21, 2026, Director Squires filed a brief on May 20, 2026 arguing the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — contending his October 2025 action was not an appealable "final written decision" because it terminated/deinstituted the proceeding. InComm (Interactive Communications) argues the Director improperly used that label to shield a merits decision from appellate review; Blackhawk filed its response brief agreeing with the Director. (Sources: Bloomberg Law; Patexia CAFC case summary.)

Notes on uncertainty

• I could not retrieve the official USPTO Patent Center record or the official CAFC docket directly in these searches; the bibliographic data is corroborated across Google Patents, Patexia, and the Unified Patents portal, but the CAFC docket details rely on third-party summaries (Patexia) and press reporting (Bloomberg Law) rather than the court's own docket text.
• The exact claims found invalid in the PTAB final written decision before Director Review were not fully specified in the search results I obtained (the "Claims Invalidated" field was blank in the Patexia snippet); the proceeding was ultimately terminated, so the patent's claims currently stand.
• Minor date discrepancies exist between sources (e.g., Unified Patents lists the IPR filing date as January 17, 2024, while the Google Patents legal-events table lists "effective date 20240117" and the user-provided text references an IPR filing in 2024). I have used the IPR petition filing date of January 17, 2024 as reported by the IPR case records.

Litigation involving US Patent 11,488,451 (US11488451B2)

Based on searches of PTAB/IPR records (Patexia, ipverse.greyb.com, Patent Lawyer Magazine), the Federal Circuit case data, and the litigation-event links embedded in the patent's own Google Patents record, I have identified two proceedings directly involving US 11488451. No district-court case asserting US 11488451 was found. Details below.

1. IPR2024-00465 — PTAB (inter partes review)

Sources: Patexia case IPR2024-00465; ipverse.greyb.com case details (status "Terminated," termination date Oct 1, 2025); Patent Lawyer Magazine (Oct. 21, 2025); legal-events table on the Google Patents record for US11488451B2 (IPR entry, opponent Interactive Communications International, Inc., effective date Jan 17, 2024).

2. Appeal No. 2026-1136 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The appeal challenges the USPTO Director's October 1, 2025 action terminating IPR2024-00465. Per third-party reporting, the Director has argued the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (contending the October 2025 action was not an appealable "final written decision"), while InComm contends the Director used that label to shield a merits decision from review; Blackhawk has sided with the Director. Appellant counsel of record: James M. Glass. Appellee counsel: Robert L. Hails Jr. (Baker & Hostetler LLP), among others.

Sources: Patexia CAFC case summary (case 2026-1136, filed Nov. 6, 2025, status "Pending"); Unified Patents litigation portal link embedded in the Google Patents record for US11488451B2 (CAFC case 26-1136); Bloomberg Law reporting referenced in the earlier summary of this patent's litigation posture.

District-court litigation

No district-court complaint naming US 11488451 as an asserted patent was located in these searches. Note that the parent patent in the same family, US 10,769,894 (US10769894B2, also titled "Methods for selling pre-printed online lottery tickets"), does appear in separate litigation — including CAFC case 22-1650 (Blackhawk Network Inc. v. Interactive Communications International Inc., filed April 14, 2022, closed) and Arizona District Court case 2:21-cv-00813 (filed May 5, 2021, closed) — but I did not confirm that US 11488451 itself was asserted in those cases, and I am not treating them as litigation "involving" US 11488451 on the available record.

Cautions and gaps

• I could not pull the Unified Patents litigation caselist directly filtered to patent 11488451 (the portal URLs returned only generic pages in these searches), nor the official CAFC docket text. CAFC case details therefore rest on Patexia and press summaries rather than the court's own docket.
• The Google Patents record for US 11488451 also flags a "first worldwide family litigation" via Darts-ip (family 56408237), which I could not open; that appears to correspond to the same IPR/CAFC proceedings above.
• There are date inconsistencies between the task's stated current date (April 26, 2026) and some sources/reporting dated into mid-2026; statuses above reflect the most recent data retrievable in these searches. If you need a definitive, real-time docket confirmation, the authoritative next step is PACER for case 2026-1136 and the PTAB's API/Portal for IPR2024-00465.

Proceedings overview

Despite the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) block in this prompt reporting no AIA trial proceedings on file, primary-source USPTO documents and independent case databases establish one AIA trial proceeding directly on US 11,488,451: IPR2024-00465 (Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.). That proceeding is terminated with no final written decision standing and zero claims invalidated — the Board's Final Written Decision finding all claims 1–24 unpatentable was vacated by Director John A. Squires on Director Review, and the proceeding was terminated in its entirety. The defensive bottom line: all 24 claims of the '451 patent are currently in force and no PTAB merits determination against the patent exists — a defendant cannot point to any canceled claim, but neither can the patent owner point to any PTAB merits affirmance; the art (Szrek, Llach, Irwin, Gilmore) remains fully available for re-litigation because no statutory estoppel attached.

⚠️ ODP discrepancy flagged: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical USPTO ODP list) shows no proceedings, which is stale or incomplete. Web search located the USPTO's own Director Review decision PDF (uspto.gov), PTACTS petition documents, Patexia's case record, and multiple law-firm analyses (Finnegan, PTAB Litigation Blog, Patent Lawyer Magazine) all confirming IPR2024-00465. Per the operating rules, I treat the corroborated web/primary-source record as controlling over the ODP ingest and flag the gap.

IPR2024-00465 — Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-01-17
• Status: Terminated (ODP block shows no proceedings — see flag above; PTAB/Patexia records show "Terminated"). Plain-English gloss: the Director granted Patent Owner's Director Review request, vacated the Board's adverse Final Written Decision, and terminated the proceeding in whole — so there is no live trial and no operative FWD.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Bart A. Gerstenblith (author of the Final Written Decision), Linda E. Horner, Arthur M. Peslak (per Patexia).
• Petition grounds — all claims 1–24 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), on four grounds (per the institution decision, as excerpted in PTACTS documents):
  • Claims 1–9, 11–24: Irwin (US 9,405,984)
  • Claim 10: Irwin + Szrek
  • Claims 1–10, 12–24: Szrek (US 7,627,497) + Llach (US 2013/0041768 A1)
  • Claim 11: Szrek + Llach + Gilmore
  • No § 102 or § 112 grounds were instituted.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-07-24 as to all challenged claims 1–24 on the § 103 grounds above. The panel also noted Patent Owner's real-party-in-interest argument regarding Linq3/SL Card (waived later when not pursued in the Patent Owner Response).
• Final Written Decision (Paper 36, issued 2025 — exact date not retrieved in these searches): The Board held all challenged claims 1–24 unpatentable as obvious based on the Szrek + Llach combination (and Szrek + Llach + Gilmore for claim 11), relying on petitioner's expert Michael Hutton's testimony on the motivation to combine. The Board did not reach the Irwin-based grounds (Decision at p. 51). Notably, the Board itself acknowledged Hutton's explanation for the Szrek–Llach combination "is not credible" (Decision at p. 32) yet still relied on his testimony.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The termination came from Director Review — a procedural vehicle, not a settlement. Blackhawk filed a Director Review request (Paper 37); Interactive filed an authorized opposition (Paper 38). Director John A. Squires — in his first Director Review decision since confirmation (2025-09-17) — granted review and, on 2025-10-01 (Paper 39), reversed the FWD and terminated the proceeding; a revised order of 2025-10-09 (Paper 40) changed "reversing" to "vacating" the FWD. Both versions expressly state the order "does not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Grounds: the Board abused its discretion by crediting Hutton's materially contradictory deposition testimony (he first said Exhibit 2050 did not represent his proposed Szrek–Llach modification, then reversed himself) — citing Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2024-1039, 2025 WL 2713518 (Fed. Cir. 2025-09-24), and N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 337 U.S. 656 (1949), the Director extended the credibility finding to the unreached Irwin grounds and terminated the whole proceeding rather than remanding.
  • USPTO primary source: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2024_00465_Director_Review_Decision.pdf
• Appeal: Yes — CAFC No. 26-1136 (Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.), filed 2025-11-06, pending as of the most recent search (2026-09-09). Issues: whether the Director's vacatur-plus-termination order is appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 319 (which limits appeals to FWDs under § 318(a)), and whether the Director may "deinstitute"/terminate a previously instituted IPR after a full trial and thereby shield a merits-dispositive ruling from review. Briefing: InComm (now represented by Quinn Emanuel) filed its opening brief; Director Squires filed his brief 2026-05-20 arguing dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; Blackhawk (Baker & Hostetler) filed its response the same day, agreeing with the Director. InComm's core argument: "The Director seeks the unreviewable power" to decide who wins "after a full trial by merely declaring his decision is not a 'final written decision.'" No oral-argument date or disposition had been reported in the sources retrieved. (Sources: Bloomberg Law 2026-05-21; Patexia CAFC/PTAB case records.)
• Defensive value: This proceeding cannot be cited as a claim-killer — no claim was finally canceled, and the only FWD on the record was vacated. But it is highly valuable defense intelligence: (1) the Board's now-vacated FWD shows the Szrek + Llach art is a serious § 103 threat to all 24 claims, and (2) the Director's vacatur was grounded entirely in petitioner-expert credibility problems, not in a merits finding of patentability. A new defendant asserting the same art must come with clean, non-contradictory expert testimony — and currently faces no § 315(e) estoppel from this proceeding because no FWD issued.

Strategic summary

Claims status: CANCELED — none. SUSTAINED — all of claims 1–24 (in force). UNTESTED — none, in the sense that all claims were challenged but no final merits decision stands. The unusual posture bears emphasis: the Board did find all claims 1–24 obvious over Szrek + Llach, but that finding was vacated and the proceeding terminated by the Director, who expressly disclaimed that his order was an FWD under § 318(a). So, as of today, the '451 patent stands with all 24 claims enforceable, and the last word from the agency is a Patent-Owner victory — albeit a procedural one. The pending CAFC appeal in 26-1136 concerns appealability/jurisdiction of the Director's order, not the merits of obviousness; if the Federal Circuit holds the order appealable and reverses, the case could return to the Board or the Director.

Estoppel landscape. Because the Director's order is not an FWD, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has not attached — a point the Finnegan and Mondaq analyses make expressly, and one the Director himself embraces (his litigation position is that no appealable FWD exists). Consequences: (i) InComm is not estopped from re-asserting Szrek/Llach/Irwin/Gilmore in district court or even in a new IPR (subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar measured from service of any infringement complaint — none against InComm on this patent has been identified); (ii) a new defendant is unaffected by estoppel in any event, since § 315(e) binds only the petitioner and its privies — so the full Szrek/Llach/Irwin/Gilmore arsenal remains available in a fresh IPR or as § 282 invalidity defenses. The practical caveat: any new IPR petitioner must avoid InComm's evidentiary trap — the Director's order signals heightened scrutiny of expert testimony on motivation to combine, and a petition that cannot prove the combination without its expert will fail.

Pattern signals. This is a recurring fight between the same two commercial adversaries across the Blackhawk lottery-ticket family, not a one-off troll dispute: Interactive Communications International (InComm) has attacked related Blackhawk patents in PGR2020-00084/00085 (institution denied), IPR2023-01235 (Board held no challenged claims unpatentable, on appeal at the CAFC — a related, not the '451, patent), and CAFC 22-1650 (Blackhawk v. InComm, affirmed 2023-06-07) arising from the Arizona SL Card/Linq3 state-court litigation. Blackhawk is a sophisticated, well-resourced patent owner (large entity; first-lien security interest in favor of Bank of America recorded 2022-06-22) that has now demonstrated a willingness and ability to use Director Review aggressively and successfully. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) is in the chain as petitioner on this patent — InComm is the real party in interest. The absence of any new IPR petition against the '451 patent in the months since the 2025-10-01 termination (none surfaced in searches through 2026-09-09) likely reflects InComm's litigation strategy of litigating appealability at the CAFC rather than re-filing while the Director's authority to terminate is contested.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 11,488,451 today: Do not assume any claim is dead — all 24 claims are in force. The single most valuable artifact is the vacated FWD (Paper 36), which maps exactly how the Szrek + Llach combination reads onto every claim; obtain it from PTAB E2E/PTACTS and build your § 103 case from the art itself, with an independent expert whose deposition testimony cannot be impeached for contradiction. Because no FWD stands, no § 315(e) estoppel bars you from using Szrek, Llach, Irwin, Gilmore, or any combination in district court or in a new IPR — but check the § 315(b) clock: a petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint asserting the patent.
2. Monitor CAFC No. 26-1136 (docket via PACER/CourtListener): the appealability question is potentially dispositive of the whole posture. If the Federal Circuit holds the Director's order non-appealable, the termination stands and the patent owner keeps its clean bill of health (though with no estoppel shield for the art). If it holds the order appealable and reverses, the proceeding (or a remand) could revive. Watch for oral argument scheduling in the fall 2026 term.
3. Pull the primary documents for your file: Director Squires' revised order, IPR2024-00465, Paper 40 (2025-10-09) — https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2024_00465_Director_Review_Decision.pdf; the institution decision; and the FWD (Paper 36) via the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (https://ptab.uspto.gov) — and quote the Director's operative language that the order "does not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" when explaining why no estoppel and no cancellation exists.
4. If advising the patent owner (Blackhawk side): the claims are presently unassailable at the PTAB, but expect (a) a possible CAFC remand, (b) possible new petitions with remediated expert testimony, and (c) continued district-court exposure to the same art. Preserve the Director Review record — it is now the centerpiece of the patent's enforcement story.

Key sources: USPTO Director Review Decision PDF (IPR2024-00465, Papers 39/40); PTACTS petition documents (institution decision, grounds table); Patexia case IPR2024-00465 and CAFC 26-1136 summaries; Finnegan "Cut to Black(hawk)" (2025-10-13); PTAB Litigation Blog (2025-10-01); Patent Lawyer Magazine (2025-10-21); Bloomberg Law (2026-05-21).

Uncertainty caveats: (1) The ODP structured block conflicts with the web/primary-source record — I have flagged and resolved in favor of the primary sources. (2) The exact issue date of the FWD (Paper 36) was not retrieved; it issued in 2025 before the 2025-10-01 Director order, and Patexia's "Decision Date Oct 1, 2025" refers to the Director Review order, not the FWD. (3) No post-May-2026 activity in CAFC 26-1136 (oral argument, decision) was located in these searches — verify on PACER/CourtListener for a real-time docket.

Inventors

• Gino Giunti — sole named inventor on US 11488451 and on the entire US family (US 9,865,135, US 10,769,894, US 11,995,959, et al.).
• Employer at filing: not determinable from the record. The priority provisional (62/104,844) was filed 2015-01-18; the assignment to Blackhawk Network, Inc. bears an effective (execution) date of 2016-08-30 (recorded 2019-04-03, reel 048782/0782). The ~19-month gap between first filing and assignment is not unusual for inventor-originated filings and is not evidence of the "inventors depart and portfolio is fire-saled" pattern. No other inventors are named, and no departure pattern can be inferred.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Blackhawk Network, Inc. (California), per the 2019-04-03 recorded assignment (reel 048782/0782, assignor Gino Giunti) and the Google Patents "Current Assignee" field.
• Line of business: Prepaid/gift-card financial products and transaction processing. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. was a public company until the 2018 take-private by Silver Lake; Blackhawk Network, Inc. is the operating subsidiary. The company is a large entity (maintenance fee paid 2026-05-01, 4th year).
• Product embodying the claims: unclear. The claims describe a third-party transaction-processor activation of pre-printed draw-lottery tickets at a retailer POS. Blackhawk operates payments/prepaid networks and has litigated against lottery/payment competitor InComm, but I found no public statement or record confirming a specific shipped product that practices claim 1 of the '451 patent. I will not assume one.
• Current status: Operating. Ownership remains with Blackhawk Network, Inc., subject to a first-lien security interest held by Bank of America, N.A. (a lender lien, not an ownership transfer — see timeline).

Assignment timeline

I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center interface in this session (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov returned no searchable results to me), so the two entries below are taken from the USPTO-derived legal-events table on the Google Patents record for US 11488451 and corroborated by PTAB documents stating Blackhawk "is the owner by assignment of all substantial interests" in the patent. Correspondent attorney/firm names are not present in any source I retrieved — that field must be pulled from reel 048782/0782 and reel 060401/0347 on the USPTO Assignment Search to complete the NPE correspondent analysis.

• 2016-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-03 — Reel 048782/0782

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (assignor-to-assignee; Google Patents codes it "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Gino Giunti
  • Assignee: Blackhawk Network, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (USPTO Assignment Center not directly queryable in this session)
  • Context: Original inventor → company assignment. Execution (Aug 2016) post-dates the 2015 first filing and pre-dates the '451 continuation filing (Feb 2019); recording occurred ~2.5 years after execution, contemporaneous with prosecution of this continuation. Ordinary assignment, not a fire-sale or transfer-to-assertion-entity.

• 2022-06-22 (executed and recorded) — Reel 060401/0347

  • Conveyance: First Lien Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Blackhawk Network, Inc. and EWI Holdings, Inc. (Blackhawk affiliate)
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lender collateral grant (debt financing), not a change of ownership. Blackhawk remains the owner; Bank of America holds a security interest. Typical for a large, leveraged operating company — not an NPE signal.

No other recorded assignments were found. There is no record of any transfer to an LLC, holding company, or assertion entity, and no post-issuance chain. This is itself the key finding: the original operating-company assignee still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11488451
    2015 : Priority provisional filed by Giunti
    2016 : Assignment to Blackhawk executed
    2019 : Continuation US 16 280 629 filed
         : Assignment recorded reel 048782 0782
    2022 : Patent issued Nov 1
         : Bank of America first lien recorded
    2024 : InComm files IPR2024 00465
    2025 : IPR terminated by Director Review

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only assignee entities in the chain are Blackhawk Network, Inc. (operating company) and Bank of America, N.A. (secured lender). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing" LLC appears. No registered-agent-address tells apply.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Blackhawk Network nor Bank of America appears on the Acacia/Marathon/IV/IPNav-type NPE lists, and neither Unified Patents nor RPX flags Blackhawk as a non-practicing asserter. The petitioner in the IPR (InComm) is a practicing competitor, not a patent-assertion entity.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent names are absent from every record I could retrieve (Google Patents legal-events excerpts and PTAB documents do not reproduce the Assignment Center correspondent field). This is the one gap in the analysis; pull reels 048782/0782 and 060401/0347 from the USPTO Assignment Center to close it. Based on the record as retrieved, there is no observed recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Exactly two recorded events over the life of the patent: one inventor→company assignment and one lender security agreement. No chained LLC transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment occurs within six months of the IPR filing (2024-01-17) or the CAFC appeal (2025-11-06). The most recent recording (2022-06-22) predates the IPR by ~19 months and is a financing lien, not a standing-arrangement transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Blackhawk Network is operating and solvent; no Chapter 7/11 patent sale. The Bank of America first-lien agreement (reel 060401/0347) indicates ordinary leveraged financing.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors. The enforcement posture is the reverse: operating company Blackhawk owns and defends the patent against competitor InComm's IPR (and Blackhawk previously litigated against InComm in the district court/CAFC, e.g., CAFC case 22-1650).
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at the operating company (with a lender's lien).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The full recorded chain is inventor Gino Giunti → Blackhawk Network, Inc. (reel 048782/0782, recorded 2019-04-03) plus a Bank of America first-lien security agreement (reel 060401/0347, recorded 2022-06-22) — with zero transfers to any LLC, shell, or known NPE, and no cascading, pre-litigation, or bankruptcy-driven transfers. The patent is owned and enforced by a large, operating payments/prepaid company against a direct industry competitor (InComm), which is the inverse of the classic troll pattern. Caveat to the label: I could not confirm a specific commercial product practicing claim 1, and the recent enforcement activity is defensive (warding off InComm's IPR2024-00465 and the CAFC appeal in 26-1136) rather than an offensive competitor suit on this exact patent, so "operating-company assertion" fits on the available record but with that qualifier. For verification of the correspondent field (the only unresolved item), search the USPTO Assignment Center at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ using patent number 11488451 and review reels 048782/0782 and 060401/0347.

1. Target patent confirmed

Search results confirm the target is US 11,488,451 B2 ("Methods for selling pre-printed online lottery tickets," Blackhawk Network, Inc.; inventor Gino Giunti; application 16/280,629 filed 2019-02-20; granted 2022-11-01; priority chain to provisional 62/104,844 filed 2015-01-18). Verified against Patexia's patent page (https://patexia.com/us/patent/[11488451](/patent/11488451)), FreePatentsOnline, and the Google Patents record. No "similar number" substitution was made. The application is an AIA application with an effective filing date of January 18, 2015 (via the provisional), so § 102(a)(1) (publications) and § 102(a)(2) (US patents/applications effectively filed before 2015-01-18) supply the prior-art horizon. Two cited "references" are in the patent's own family and cannot be prior art (Section 3 below).

Claim 1 (the only independent claim) is a three-step method performed by a third-party transaction processor: (a) receiving from a retailer POS an activation request for a manufactured, pre-printed, random-draw lottery ticket picked by the customer before checkout, where the processor serves a plurality of different retailers; (b) forwarding the ticket's unique identification information to a lottery administration system over a first secured communication, without lottery hardware; and (c) receiving, over a second secured communication, an indication that draw information has been associated with the ticket. Claims 2–24 add barcode/UPC details, validation, age validation, generation timing of random numbers, encryption, multi-retailer/multi-game aggregation, etc.

Procedural caveat that governs the § 102 analysis below: in IPR2024-00465, the Board's Final Written Decision (later vacated by Director Review and the proceeding terminated) found claims 1–24 unpatentable only under § 103 obviousness over Szrek + Llach (and + Gilmore for claim 11), and it did not reach the Irwin ground. No tribunal has ever held any cited reference to anticipate any claim under § 102. The claim-mapping below is therefore a "potential anticipation" screen, not a finding.

2. Closest prior art — lottery-specific references (highest § 102 relevance)

These are the references that disclose the core concept: a pre-printed, draw-based lottery product activated at a normal retail POS without dedicated lottery-terminal printing.

2.1 Szrek — US 2004/0193464 A1 and its issued patent US 7,627,497 B2

• Full citations: (i) US 2004/0193464 A1, Szrek, "Apparatus and method for selling lottery tickets from a POS terminal," priority Mar. 26, 2003 (provisional 60/457,800), published Sep. 30, 2004; (ii) US 7,627,497 B2, same title, issued Dec. 1, 2009 (verified via Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline and the PTACTS IPR exhibits, where Szrek was Ex. 1005).
• Description: The seminal "CHECKOUT PLAY" disclosure. A ticket is pre-printed by a commercial printer/kiosk/terminal with no play value until activated; it carries a barcode with a unique ticket identifier algorithmically or database-linked to the stored wager (or pre-printed player selections/quick picks). At the retail cash register the barcode is scanned and an authorization request is sent to the game provider (directly or indirectly via the store back office), which recognizes the ticket identifier, activates the ticket for a specific draw, and returns activation data printed on the cash-register receipt (which is not the legal ticket — the pre-printed ticket is the bearer's bond). The disclosure expressly analogizes the sale to phone-card activation at the register and stresses sale "as any other in-store merchandise" with no extra lottery equipment in the lane and no custom POS software.
• § 102 assessment — the single closest anticipatory candidate: Szrek (especially the issued patent) alone arguably discloses nearly every limitation of claim 1 except the framing of the intermediary as a third-party transaction processor receiving requests from a plurality of different retailers (Szrek's "store back office" is retailer-side, and its indirect path is not described as a multi-retailer third-party processor). Szrek alone also maps to dependent claims 2 (unique product info over a channel from the POS), 3 (draw info on printed receipt), 5 (ticket identifier indicates game/transaction type), 11/12 (numbers generated at purchase for quick picks, or pre-associated for pre-printed selections), 13 (no lottery hardware in lane), 14–16 (barcode; identifier; product data), 17 (ticket as the redemption instrument), 18 (activation for a specific draw), 19 (numbers entered in a draw). Because the multi-retailer third-party-processor element of claim 1 is not clearly present, Szrek alone is a strong § 103 primary reference but a weak § 102 anticipation case for claim 1; it is the best § 102 candidate for the dependent claims listed. This matches the IPR posture, where Szrek was the base reference for obviousness, not anticipation.

2.2 Irwin — US 9,405,984 B2 (application published as US 2007/0010311 A1)

• Full citation: US 9,405,984 B2, Irwin, Jr., "Preprinted lottery tickets using a player activated electronic validation machine"; application US 2007/0010311 A1 published Jan. 11, 2007 (verified via FreePatentsOnline; the patent number appears in the IPR petition as Ex. 1003/1030). Note: Irwin is not on the face of the '451 patent's citation list; it was central in IPR2024-00465 and is included here because it is the most relevant art actually litigated.
• Description: A lottery retail system in which pre-printed passive tickets (serialized, pre-printed, sold then matched to a later draw) and pre-printed "quick-pick cards" are scanned at a merchant POS; a transaction is routed by an acquiring/transaction processor that detects a "lottery BIN" and forwards the data packet to the lottery central site, which decodes the quick-pick request, generates random numbers, logs the transaction with a serial number, and (in the merchant-print embodiment) transmits a print command to the merchant's printer. Street-vendor passive tickets are "scanned and recorded in a central site database at the time of sale." It also discloses validation of winning tickets by serial number against a drawing database, inventory reporting, and multi-merchant routing.
• § 102 assessment: Irwin is the reference that most clearly places a financial/acquiring intermediary between many merchant POS systems and a single lottery central site — i.e., the element Szrek lacks. Irwin maps to claim 1 limitations (a)–(c) more completely than any other single reference, and to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24. In the IPR, however, the Irwin ground was not reached by the Board (the FWD rested on Szrek + Llach), and the only substantive gap identified for claim 1 was whether Irwin alone discloses the pre-printed ticket being "selected by the customer prior to checkout" and activated "during the check-out process" in a grocery-style basket (Irwin's quick-pick embodiment contemplates generation/printing at the merchant, and its passive-ticket embodiment is closer to street-vendor sale). Irwin is the best single-reference § 102 candidate for claim 1 on the current record, but the petitioner itself pleaded it as § 103, and no § 102 finding exists.

2.3 Walker Digital — US 6,267,670 B1

• Full citation: US 6,267,670 B1, "System and method for performing lottery ticket transactions utilizing point-of-sale terminals," Walker Digital, LLC; priority Mar. 21, 1997; issued Jul. 31, 2001.
• Description: Lottery ticket sales transacted at conventional retailer POS terminals (cash registers) rather than dedicated lottery terminals. A customer requests a lottery wager at a general-purpose POS; the POS communicates with a lottery host to validate/execute the wager, and the ticket/play data is handled through the retailer's own systems (including printer output). Pre-AIA-era (effectively filed 1997), so it is § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art regardless.
• § 102 assessment: Anticipates the broad concept of "draw-ticket wager initiated at a standard retail POS without dedicated lottery hardware," which reads on claim 1's "without the use of lottery hardware" and POS-originated request, plus claims 2, 3, 13, 19. It does not disclose a pre-printed, pre-manufactured ticket later activated (it generates the ticket at the POS), nor a third-party transaction processor aggregating multiple retailers, so it does not anticipate claim 1 or claims 4, 21–24.

2.4 Behm — US 2002/0119817 A1 and issued US 6,899,621 B2

• Full citations: US 2002/0119817 A1 (priority Feb. 27, 2001; published Aug. 29, 2002) and US 6,899,621 B2 (issued May 31, 2005), Behm, "System and method for selling lottery game tickets."
• Description: Methods for selling draw-based lottery tickets through ordinary retail POS equipment, using a host lottery system to validate and record wagers placed via the retailer's cash register, with the ticket data printed/communicated at the retail location. Examiner-cited (asterisked) reference.
• § 102 assessment: Relevant to claim 1's POS-originated lottery request and claims 2, 3, 13. Lacks a pre-printed ticket that is dormant until activation, and lacks the third-party multi-retailer processor → does not anticipate claim 1.

2.5 Gilmore — US 2005/0233797 A1

• Full citation: US 2005/0233797 A1, Gilmore et al., "System and method for selling lottery game tickets through a point of sale system"; priority Feb. 27, 2001; published Oct. 20, 2005; later assigned to Scientific Games International (verified via Google Patents assignment records). Examiner-cited.
• Description: Lottery tickets (including draw/online games) sold through a retailer's existing POS by scanning product-identifying codes; POS transactions are integrated with lottery back-end validation/activation. This is the reference the examiner distinguished during prosecution and that the IPR petition used only as the third reference for claim 11 (Szrek + Llach + Gilmore).
• § 102 assessment: Maps to claims 2, 14–16 (product codes scanned at POS). Does not singly disclose the pre-printed dormant draw ticket activated via a third-party processor; does not anticipate claim 1.

2.6 Scientific Games (Herndon) — US 2009/0163263 A1

• Full citation: US 2009/0163263 A1, Herndon et al., "Method and System for Multiple In-Lane Lottery Ticket Sales at a Retail Establishment"; filed Dec. 19, 2007; published Jun. 25, 2009 (verified via USPTO.report and Google Patents). Assignee: Scientific Games International.
• Description: In-lane lottery sales at grocery-style checkout lanes. A token/PLU/UPC read at the POS captures lottery data ("rung up" like inventory), forwarded to a centralized lottery system; in the loosely coupled embodiment there is "no lottery-specific software running on the retail POS system or terminals." Notably, however, the primary embodiments include an in-lane lottery printer 118 and in-lane lottery sales computing devices — i.e., it does not teach away from lottery hardware the way claim 1 requires.
• § 102 assessment: Strong for claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 14–16, 21–22 (multiple lanes, POS handled like inventory, centralized lottery system). Because the ticket is printed in-lane at the time of sale in the primary embodiment and dedicated in-lane lottery hardware is present, it does not anticipate claim 1's "manufactured, pre-printed" ticket / "without the use of lottery hardware" / third-party processor elements.

2.7 Elot — US 6,322,446 B1

• Full citation: US 6,322,446 B1, "System and a method for operating on-line state lottery games," Elot, Inc.; priority Dec. 10, 1999; issued Nov. 27, 2001. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Operating online (draw-based) state lottery games, including retailer-side terminals/point-of-sale devices communicating with a central lottery computer for wager placement, validation, and draw processing.
• § 102 assessment: Relevant to claims 2, 3, 18, 19. Generic online-lottery infrastructure; lacks pre-printed dormant tickets and the third-party processor aggregation of claim 1.

2.8 Gtech — US 5,935,000 A

• Full citation: US 5,935,000 A, "Secure gaming ticket and validation method for same," GTech Rhode Island Corporation; priority Mar. 4, 1998; issued Aug. 10, 1999. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Secure printed gaming tickets (including draw tickets) with machine-readable secure validation data, and methods for validating them against a central system — the "ticket-as-legal-instrument" security backbone.
• § 102 assessment: Maps to claim 1(c) and claims 3, 7, 17 (validation; ticket contains redemption/validation info). No POS activation of pre-printed dormant draw tickets through a third-party processor → no anticipation of claim 1.

2.9 McBride — US 2009/0227320 A1

• Full citation: US 2009/0227320 A1, McBride, "Method for lottery corporations to run online gaming"; filed Mar. 6, 2008; published Sep. 10, 2009. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Methods for lottery corporations to offer online gaming through third-party/retail channels, including account and wager processing.
• § 102 assessment: Cited by the examiner over the same Gilmore/McBride combination noted in prosecution. Maps weakly to claims 2, 19; does not disclose pre-printed POS-activated draw tickets or the claim 1 processor architecture.

2.10 Gtech — US 2010/0093421 A1

• Full citation: US 2010/0093421 A1, "System, Device and Method for Paperless Wagering and Payment of Winnings," Gtech Corporation; priority Oct. 13, 2008; published Apr. 15, 2010. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Paperless wagering where a player's wager is recorded electronically (e.g., on a card/account) and winnings are paid electronically — a counterpoint to the '451 patent's physical pre-printed legal ticket.
• § 102 assessment: Not anticipatory of claim 1 (which requires a manufactured pre-printed ticket as the legal instrument); relevant only as background to claims 3 (alternate access to draw info) and 19.

2.11 Crucs — US 8,219,497 B2

• Full citation: US 8,219,497 B2, "System and method for anonymously servicing lottery players," Crucs Holdings, LLC; priority Jul. 11, 2008; issued Jul. 10, 2012. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Anonymous servicing of lottery players (agent-mediated transactions without player identification).
• § 102 assessment: Remote/agent lottery sales; maps only to claim 10 (age validation, in reverse) in the loosest sense. Not an anticipation candidate.

2.12 Scientific Games — US 8,408,986 B2

• Full citation: US 8,408,986 B2, "Internet based lottery redemption system and methods," Scientific Games International; priority Nov. 2, 2009; issued Apr. 2, 2013. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Internet-based redemption of lottery tickets, including validating tickets against a lottery database.
• § 102 assessment: Maps to claim 3 (checking draw/win info online) and claim 1(c) (association with lottery system). No POS activation of pre-printed tickets → no anticipation.

2.13 Scientific Games — US 8,784,180 B2

• Full citation: US 8,784,180 B2, "System and method for play of a network-based lottery game," Scientific Games International; priority May 31, 2012; issued Jul. 22, 2014. Examiner-cited.
• Description: Network-based lottery play where tickets/wagers are processed over a network by a lottery host.
• § 102 assessment: General network lottery processing; maps to claims 18, 19, 22 (multiple games). Not anticipatory of claim 1.

2.14 Sandvick — US 9,251,663 B1

• Full citation: US 9,251,663 B1, Sandvick, "Computer activated instant winner lottery ticket game system and method"; priority Mar. 15, 2013; issued Feb. 2, 2016 (note: issued after the '451 effective filing date of Jan. 18, 2015, so it is prior art only if its application was effectively filed before that date, i.e., via the 2013 priority filing — § 102(a)(2)). Examiner-cited.
• Description: Instant-win (scratch-style) tickets that are computer-activated at sale; not a random-draw ("online") lottery product.
• § 102 assessment: Not anticipatory of claim 1 — claim 1 requires a random draw lottery ticket, and Sandvick is instant-win. Weakest lottery-art candidate.

2.15 Llach — US 2013/0041768 A1 and issued US 10,296,895 B2 (Blackhawk's own stored-value-card applications)

• Full citations: US 2013/0041768 A1, Llach et al., "System for Processing, Activating and Redeeming Value Added Prepaid Cards," Blackhawk Network, Inc.; priority Jan. 8, 2010; published Feb. 14, 2013 (verified via Docket Alarm exhibit and Google Patents); issued as US 10,296,895 B2 on May 21, 2019. The issued patent is also cited on the face of the '451 patent.
• Description: A third-party transaction processor receives activation/redemption requests for stored-value/gift cards from POS terminals of many merchants, modifies requests, and relays them to card-issuer authorization systems, returning authorization responses to the POS — the canonical "third-party processor sits between many retailers' POS systems and the issuer/authority" architecture. It is card-activation art, not lottery art, but it supplied the transaction-processor limitation in the IPR's Szrek + Llach combination.
• § 102 assessment: Llach does not alone anticipate claim 1 because it never mentions lottery tickets, draw information, or pre-printed draw tickets — a § 102 failure on the "random draw lottery ticket" and "draw information" limitations. It is the archetypal § 103 secondary reference (supplying the third-party multi-retailer processor element) and maps to dependent claims 4, 21, 23 if those were ever divorced from the lottery context (they cannot be, as they depend from claim 1). AIA nuance: the published application (Feb. 14, 2013) is § 102(a)(1) prior art predating Jan. 18, 2015; the issued patent (May 21, 2019) post-dates the effective filing date but qualifies under § 102(a)(2) through its 2010/2014 filings. Common ownership with Blackhawk does not remove the (a)(1) publication from the prior-art field for this later, different-inventor continuation.

3. Family references that are NOT prior art

• US 9,865,135 B2 (parent; issued Jan. 9, 2018) and US 2018/0096558 A1 (publication of the immediate parent US 15/833,566, published Apr. 5, 2018; issued as US 10,769,894 B2): same disclosure, same inventive entity, same assignee, and entitled to the same Jan. 18, 2015 priority. They are in the '451 patent's own priority chain and cannot be § 102 prior art against it (they are not "prior" in law). They are listed on the face of the patent only as family/publication cross-references. Do not treat them as anticipation references.

4. Secondary art — stored-value card / prepaid-activation analogies (§ 102 relevance: low)

These examiner/applicant citations disclose POS activation of dormant value instruments through an intermediary — the architectural analogy to claim 1 — but none involves a lottery ticket, a draw, or draw information. Each therefore fails § 102 on claim 1's lottery limitations and can only contribute § 103 motivation or support isolated dependent-claim features (secure channel, activation request content, validation, multi-merchant processing).

5. Bottom-line § 102 ranking

1. Irwin (US 9,405,984 B2 / US 2007/0010311 A1) — the single strongest § 102 candidate for claim 1 because it places an acquiring/transaction processor between many merchants and the lottery central site and activates pre-printed passive/quick-pick tickets at the POS; even so, the only litigated theory was § 103, and the "customer-basket checkout" framing of claim 1(a) is not clearly present.
2. Szrek (US 7,627,497 B2 / US 2004/0193464 A1) — the strongest disclosure of the pre-printed dormant draw ticket activated at a normal register with receipt-only printing; lacks the multi-retailer third-party processor of claim 1, so its best § 102 targets are claims 2, 3, 5, 11–20.
3. Walker (US 6,267,670 B1) and Behm (US 6,899,621 B2) — POS-originated lottery wagers without dedicated lottery hardware; fail § 102 on the pre-printed-ticket and third-party-processor elements.
4. Herndon (US 2009/0163263 A1) — multi-lane POS lottery integration but with in-lane lottery hardware and on-demand printing; fails claim 1's "manufactured, pre-printed" and "without lottery hardware" elements.
5. All stored-value/prepaid card references and Llach — cannot anticipate claim 1 (no lottery/draw disclosure); they are § 103 combination components for the third-party multi-retailer processor and secured-communication limitations.
6. No reference on the face of the patent or litigated in IPR2024-00465 has been held to anticipate any claim of US 11,488,451. The only merits determination (now vacated) was § 103 obviousness over Szrek + Llach (+ Gilmore for claim 11).

Uncertainty flags: (i) Irwin's exact grant date (Aug. 2016 per the IPR record) was not re-verified in this session; its application publication date (Jan. 11, 2007) is the operative prior-art date and is verified. (ii) Non-provisional filing dates for several 1990s references are given as the Google Patents "priority date" column and should be confirmed against the USPTO front pages before reliance in a pleading. (iii) All "potential anticipation" conclusions above are screening assessments under AIA § 102; a formal anticipation position requires claim-by-claim element matching against the full text of each reference.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 11,488,451 B2 ("Methods for Selling Pre-Printed Online Lottery Tickets")

Date/status flag. The task instructions state a current date of April 26, 2026, while the file-level operating instructions state September 9, 2026, and some cited litigation reporting post-dates April 2026. I flag the inconsistency; it has no effect on the § 103 analysis because every reference discussed below published well before the earliest claimed priority date (Provisional Application 62/104,844, filed January 18, 2015).

Scope note. Per the task instruction, this analysis uses the prior art identified in the patent's own record (the "Citations," "Patent Citations," "Non-Patent Citations," and "Similar Documents" sections reproduced in the Google Patents record above). Where the IPR2024-00465 record adds art not on the '451's own citation list (notably Irwin, US 9,405,984), I flag it separately and mark my uncertainty about its disclosure content, which I could not verify in this session.

I. Executive summary

Claim 1 of US 11,488,451 is a three-step method performed by a third-party transaction processor that (a) receives a POS activation request for a customer-selected, manufactured, pre-printed random-draw ticket from any of a plurality of retailers; (b) forwards the ticket's unique identification information to a lottery administration system over a first secured communication, with no lottery hardware at the retailer; and (c) receives back, over a second secured communication, confirmation that draw information has been associated with the ticket.

The strongest § 103 case is Szrek (US 2004/0193464 A1; issued as US 7,627,497 B2) in view of Llach (US 2013/0041768 A1; issued as US 10,296,895 B2) — the exact combination the PTAB credited in IPR2024-00465 when it initially found all of claims 1–24 unpatentable (Final Written Decision, later vacated by Director Review on expert-credibility grounds, not on any deficiency in the art). Szrek supplies nearly every limitation of claim 1 — pre-printed, manufactured, random-draw tickets sold at ordinary retail cash registers with no in-lane lottery equipment, activation by a lottery administration system in response to a POS scan, and draw information returned to and printed on the cash-register receipt. Llach — which, notably, is Blackhawk's own earlier patent — supplies the one architectural element Szrek does not expressly claim: a third-party transaction processor, interposed between many retailers' POS terminals and an authorization system, communicating over encrypted/VPN links. The '451 specification itself concedes that the transaction-processor architecture was a known alternative ("This may be effective where a third party system is already integrated with the retailers POS for the purpose of interchanging data and transactions"), and Szrek itself analogizes the desired lottery sale to the then-ubiquitous phone-card/prepaid-card activation at the cash register — precisely the model Llach implements.

II. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), obviousness is assessed from (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious when a PHOSITA would have had a reason to combine known elements with a reasonable expectation of success, driven by "ordinary creativity," design incentives, market pressure, and the "known technique" of solving the same problem in the same or an analogous way.

PHOSITA definition. A person with a B.S. in computer science, information systems, or a related field, plus 2–4 years' experience designing or operating electronic payment/transaction-processing systems (POS activation networks, stored-value/prepaid card systems) or lottery transaction systems, and familiarity with retail checkout operations, barcode/UPC scanning, secure network messaging (encryption/VPN), and lottery administration (draw-based and instant games). The IPR record (both sides' experts) used a substantially similar definition, and the parties did not materially dispute it.

III. Claim 1 element breakdown (with the patent's own gloss)

Dependent claims 2–24 add, in substance: receipt of unique product info (2); delivery of draw info by printed receipt / code scan / website or app lookup (3); single-lottery-system aggregation (4); product-info-determined game type/wager amount/number of wagers (5); retrieval of the unique ID from product info (6); validation incl. check-digits, valid distribution, age (7–10, 23–24); random numbers generated at purchase (11) or pre-associated (12); no lottery hardware (13); barcode with first/second-party info or UPC (14–16); redemption-bearing ticket (17); lottery system generates wagers and assigns draw date (18); numbers entered in a draw (19); encrypted communications (20); requests from multiple retailers/locations/POS and multiple games (21–22).

IV. Prior-art universe (from the patent's own record)

Group A — Lottery sales at retail POS / pre-printed tickets (the "lottery line"):

• Szrek — US 2004/0193464 A1 (pub. Sept. 30, 2004) and issued US 7,627,497 B2 (Dec. 1, 2009) — Apparatus and method for selling lottery tickets from a POS terminal.
• Walker — US 6,267,670 B1 (July 31, 2001) — Lottery ticket transactions utilizing POS terminals (also US 7,547,251 B2, continuation).
• Gilmore — US 2005/0233797 A1 (pub. Oct. 20, 2005) — Selling lottery game tickets through a POS system.
• Behm — US 2002/0119817 A1 and issued US 6,899,621 B2 (May 31, 2005) — System and method for selling lottery game tickets (same Feb. 27, 2001 filing lineage as Gilmore).
• Scientific Games — US 2009/0163263 A1 (pub. June 25, 2009) — Multiple in-lane lottery ticket sales at a retail establishment.
• Elot — US 6,322,446 B1 (Nov. 27, 2001) — Operating on-line state lottery games.
• Gtech — US 5,935,000 A (Aug. 10, 1999) — Secure gaming ticket and validation method; US 2010/0093421 A1 — Paperless wagering and payment of winnings.
• Scientific Games — US 8,409,986 B2 (Internet-based lottery redemption); US 8,784,180 B2 (network-based lottery game).
• Crucs — US 8,219,497 B2 (anonymous lottery servicing); Sandvick — US 9,251,663 B1 (computer-activated instant-winner ticket); McBride — US 2009/0227320 A1.

Group B — Third-party activation/transaction processing of dormant instruments (the "activation line"):

• Llach — US 2013/0041768 A1 (pub. Feb. 14, 2013), issued family members US 9,852,414 B2 and US 10,296,895 B2 — System for processing, activating and redeeming value added prepaid cards (assignee: Blackhawk Network, Inc. — the same assignee as the '451 patent).
• InComm/Call Processing — US 5,511,114 A, US 5,577,109 A (pre-paid card systems), US 5,777,305 A (activating prepaid debit cards).
• E2Interactive — US 8,706,630 B2 (securely authorizing/distributing stored-value card data), US 7,093,761 B2.
• Western Union — US 8,083,133 B2; First Data — US 8,424,758 B2; Store Financial — US 8,862,504 B2; American Express — US 7,344,067 B2; Brooks — US 2010/0051691 A1; Dawson — US 6,454,165 B1; Dorf — US 6,007,608 A; Ward-Kraft — US 7,027,807 B2.

Group C — Non-patent and validation/checking art:

• Missouri Lottery, "Check My Tickets" (archived Oct. 31, 2013) — checking draw results/ticket status online by ticket identifier.
• PayPal Here (archived Apr. 1, 2014) — mobile POS payment processing.

V. Lead combinations and element mapping

Combination 1 — Szrek alone (and Szrek + routine POS networking)

What Szrek discloses (verified against the publication text):

1. Pre-printed, manufactured, random-draw tickets. Tickets 300 are "preprinted by a commercial printer 140 or in the lottery kiosk 130, self service terminal 130 or regular lottery terminals 120" and carry bet selections 350, a unique ticket identifier 330, a barcode 310 encoding the identifier and product type, price 380, a security code 320, and a disclaimer that the ticket "will not be eligible in the draws until activated."
2. Customer selection pre-checkout. "A lottery player may choose his own selection … or he may pick up a ticket 300 printed by the commercial printer 140" — i.e., the ticket is on the shelf and carried to the register.
3. POS activation without lottery hardware. Szrek's stated goal is "the secure sale of lottery tickets at general retail point of sale (POS) checkout points, such as standard cash registers," and "[i]deally one would want to allow for sales in lanes w/o any additional lottery equipment required in lane and with minimal additional overall cost," because prior in-lane terminals were "cost prohibitive." "The store clerk scans ticket 300 like any other product"; the register request "will be transformed into transactional request to the game provider 250" (i.e., a lottery administration system), which "will activate this ticket by marking a status or state of corresponding identifier."
4. Draw information returned and printed on the register receipt. Szrek's FIG. 2/FIG. 4 and the record show "activation information printed on the cash register receipt," including receipt data and draw info; the specification states the ticket's identifier/bet combination is recognized by the game provider upon activation.
5. Secured/validated messaging. Tickets carry a security code 320 for authentication; Szrek discusses age control and integrated accounting with merchandise sales.
6. Direct or indirect routing. In describing the phone-card analogue, Szrek notes the authorization request may be sent "directly from the cash register to the phone service provider or indirectly via the store back office, which may be connected to store chain network."

Element mapping (Szrek alone):

What Szrek arguably does not expressly disclose: a third-party processor (as opposed to the lottery host, or the store's own back office) that aggregates activation requests from a plurality of different retailers. Whether Szrek alone reads on element 1(a)'s "third-party transaction processor … plurality of different retailers" was the crux of the IPR2024-00465 grounds split: the Board's vacated FWD resolved the case on Szrek + Llach, and the earlier PGR2020-00084 FWD (against the parent US 10,769,894 — a decision that was not vacated) found the analogous claims unpatentable over Szrek. Even if a fact-finder requires a second reference for the third-party-aggregator limitation, Llach supplies it directly (Combination 2).

Combination 2 — Szrek + Llach (primary recommended ground)

What Llach discloses (verified): A "stored value card transaction processor" (transaction computer 150) that "receives an activation or redemption request for a stored value card from a point of sale terminal," where the request "comprises at least one of a card identification, a point of sale terminal identification, a merchant identification, and a time of activation"; the processor validates against a datastore, forwards the request to a card issuer authorization system 160, receives the issuer's response, and forwards the response back to the POS terminal. Llach expressly discloses that the communications between the POS interface and the POS component, and between the card-issuer interface and the card issuer's authorization system, "may be encrypted for added security and/or may utilize a virtual private network (VPN)." Llach's architecture inherently aggregates many merchants' POS terminals and many card issuers' authorization systems through one intermediary — the canonical third-party transaction processor.

Element mapping (Szrek + Llach):

Motivation to combine — why a PHOSITA would do it (this is the heart of the analysis):

1. Szrek itself identifies the activation model to borrow. Szrek ¶[0011] explains that stores already sell "merchandise … requir[ing] some type of activation," giving the phone card as the paradigm: "the sale of the card would be registered and authorization request, including phone card identifier, would be sent to the card issuer or his agent for the phone card activation. From cashier's point of view the sale of such phone card is similar to sales of any other merchandise." Szrek thus teaches the POSITA to implement lottery-ticket sales using the same cash-register activation architecture used for prepaid instruments. Llach is a canonical, later, and detailed implementation of that very architecture, with the added third-party-intermediary and encryption details. Combining them is applying a known technique (third-party POS activation processing) to a problem Szrek expressly framed in those terms — classic KSR "known technique" obviousness.
2. Same field/analogous art. Llach is not remote art: it is an electronic-activation/transaction-processing system operating at the retail POS — the same POS environment, same barcode-scan-and-activate transaction flow, same message formats, same need for secure routing, same reconciliation between merchants and issuers. Stored-value-card activation and lottery-ticket activation are both "activate a dormant, uniquely-identified instrument at the checkout lane" problems.
3. Same assignee's own architecture. Llach is assigned to Blackhawk Network, Inc. — the '451 patent's own assignee. The '451 specification itself describes the third-party transaction processor as a known, effective alternative: "the communication and data transfers between the POS and lottery system may be facilitat[ed] by a transaction processor system. This may be effective where a third party system is already integrated with the retailers POS for the purpose of interchanging data and transactions." A patent owner's own prior-art admission that the intermediary design was conventional substantially weakens any argument that inserting the Llach processor into Szrek's flow was non-obvious.
4. Concrete design incentive / market pressure. Lottery operators want multi-lane grocery and big-box distribution without per-lane terminal cost (Szrek's stated problem; echoed in Gilmore's and Scientific Games '263's backgrounds). Retailers already route prepaid activations through third-party processors to avoid building N-retailer × M-issuer direct connections. A PHOSITA seeking to scale Szrek's single-register lottery sale to "every checkout lane in all store locations" (the '451's own stated goal) would naturally interpose the same kind of processor that already aggregates retailer POS traffic — achieving one integration per retailer chain and one interface per lottery. That is precisely the claimed method.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Both references operate on standard POS hardware with barcode scanning and store-and-forward messaging; no new hardware is required; secure messaging (Llach's encryption/VPN) is routine. The modification is a routing/architectural change, not an experimental one.
6. No teaching away. Szrek's "indirect via store back office" passage anticipates intermediate routing; nothing in Szrek discourages a third-party intermediary, and nothing in Llach limits it to stored-value cards (Llach describes card issuers as including "transaction processors such as VISA, Mastercard" and contemplates a processor administrator managing multi-merchant, multi-issuer traffic).

Combination 3 — Szrek + Llach + Gilmore (needed for claim 11 per the IPR ground; reinforcing for the multi-lane POS/dispensing features)

Gilmore (US 2005/0233797 A1) expressly targets the multi-lane grocery-store barrier and discloses: players picking up pre-printed lottery tokens carrying game-identification codes and presenting them at the POS "to be scanned … with the other items being purchased"; a game monitor that passively observes POS traffic and identifies the scanned lottery product; dispenser-based fulfillment; and off-site lottery system communication. A PHOSITA would add Gilmore to Szrek + Llach for its disclosure of (i) the multi-lane retail environment with lottery product merchandised in-lane, (ii) passive monitoring of POS traffic to detect lottery scans without lottery-specific POS software, and (iii) automated dispensing of the correct pre-printed ticket. Motivation: Gilmore identifies the same cost/throughput barriers as Szrek and proposes POS-integrated pre-printed-ticket sales; combining two references addressing the identical problem with compatible architectures yields predictable results. The IPR2024-00465 institution decision included Szrek + Llach + Gilmore as the ground for claim 11 (the claim directed to randomly determined numbers generated at purchase), and the vacated FWD found that claim obvious on that ground.

Combination 4 — Walker '670 (+ Szrek/Llach) — integrated merchandise/lottery receipt and number generation

Walker US 6,267,670 B1 discloses lottery transactions at POS terminals where "a group of point-of-sale terminals are connected to a POS controller which communicates with a lottery data processing system," lottery numbers are generated ("quick-pick"), and lottery information is printed on the customer's merchandise receipt with "an encrypted authentication code … printed on the sales receipt." Walker supplies, in one pre-2001 reference: the receipt-as-ticket-information medium, integrated checkout of merchandise + lottery, centralized lottery data processing, and encrypted messaging. Motivation to combine Walker with Szrek/Llach: the '451's own FIG. 1 and dependent claim 3 require draw and wager information on the customer's shopping receipt — an integration Walker explicitly teaches and Szrek's FIG. 4 also shows; a PHOSITA combining Szrek's pre-printed-ticket activation with Walker's receipt printing and quick-pick number generation would have had a reasonable expectation of a working integrated checkout.

Combination 5 — Scientific Games '263 + Szrek (+ Llach) — the multi-lane retail motivation reference

Scientific Games US 2009/0163263 A1 addresses the exact multi-lane problem the '451 patent claims to solve: checkout lanes 104-1…104-4 each with a POS terminal and scanner, lottery products 120 merchandised at the lanes, request data "forwarded on to a centralized lottery system," and a "loosely coupled interface" so that "there is no lottery-specific software running on the retail point of sale system or terminals." While '263 still uses an in-lane lottery printer 118 (and is therefore not anticipatory of the "without lottery hardware" limitation), it is powerful motivation evidence that (i) the multi-lane lottery-sale problem was recognized and commercially pursued, (ii) the industry value of avoiding lottery-specific POS software was known, and (iii) routing lane scans to a central lottery system was standard. A PHOSITA combining '263's lane architecture with Szrek's pre-printed (non-printed-in-lane) ticket and Llach's intermediary processor would arrive directly at claim 1.

Combination 6 — The activation-line art generally (InComm/E2Interactive/Western Union/Brooks + Szrek/Walker)

Even without Llach, the broader Group B art teaches every non-lottery-specific limitation. E.g.:

• US 5,577,109 / US 5,777,305 (InComm/Call Processing) — activating dormant pre-paid instruments at the retailer's existing POS by scanning a barcode and sending an activation request to a host over a network, with the sale treated like ordinary merchandise. These predate even Szrek and are the foundational "activate at the register" patents.
• US 8,706,630 (E2Interactive) — secure authorization and distribution of stored-value card data across multiple retail locations through an intermediary.
• US 2010/0051691 (Brooks) — retail activation with partial-authorization transaction handling across POS networks.
• US 8,083,133 (Western Union) / US 8,424,758 (First Data) / US 8,862,504 (Store Financial) — activation accounting and control across many merchant locations.

The motivation analysis is the same as for Llach: Szrek (and the entire lottery-POS line) defines the problem as bringing draw-based lottery sales to ordinary cash registers; the Group B art defines the standard solution architecture — a third-party processor aggregating retailer POS activations, secure messaging, database validation — and Szrek expressly points at the phone-card analogue. A PHOSITA "with ordinary creativity" would combine a lottery-POS reference (Szrek or Walker) with the mature activation-processor art.

VI. Secondary considerations and the prosecution/PTAB record

1. The vacated IPR FWD is persuasive (not binding) evidence. In IPR2024-00465, the Board (Judges Gerstenblith, Horner, Peslak) found all claims 1–24 unpatentable as obvious over Szrek + Llach (and Szrek + Llach + Gilmore for claim 11). The Director vacated that decision and terminated the proceeding (Papers 39/40, Oct. 1/9, 2025) solely because the petitioner's expert, Michael Hutton, gave materially contradictory deposition testimony about Exhibit 2050 (a modified Szrek figure) — an evidentiary-credibility defect, not a finding that the references failed to disclose the claimed subject matter. Because no final written decision stands, no § 315(e) estoppel attaches, and the full Szrek/Llach/Gilmore/Irwin arsenal remains available in district court or a new IPR. For a § 103 analysis, the vacated FWD is nonetheless a useful roadmap showing exactly how a fact-finder mapped Szrek + Llach onto each claim — but any new challenge should be built on the reference text itself, not on expert-generated figures, to avoid the credibility trap that sank InComm.
2. Related PGR2020-00084 (parent patent US 10,769,894). The Board there issued a Final Written Decision (Mar. 15, 2022) finding the parent's claims unpatentable over Szrek alone — reinforcing that Szrek's disclosure is very strong against this claim family even without Llach.
3. Prosecution history counterweight. During prosecution of the '451's parent, the examiner allowed claims over Gilmore and McBride, and patent owner distinguished Gilmore on the ground that Gilmore's random-draw tickets are "printed only at the conclusion of a check-out process" and therefore are not "selected by a customer prior to initiation of a check-out process." That distinction is powerful against a Gilmore-led combination, but it does not rescue the claims against a Szrek-led combination, because Szrek's tickets are manufactured off-site, stocked, picked up by the customer, and only activated at the register. Any § 103 case should therefore lead with Szrek (or Walker + Szrek) and use Gilmore only as a secondary/motivation reference.
4. Long-felt need / failed prior attempts. The prior art itself documents a long-felt need (multi-lane draw-ticket sales) and failed prior attempts (costly in-lane lottery terminals; see Szrek ¶[0003], Gilmore background, Scientific Games '263). This cuts both ways: it shows the problem was known and commercially important (supporting a motivation finding), but a patent owner could argue the persistence of the unmet need and the fact that no one combined Szrek + Llach before 2015 weighs against obviousness. The counter is KSR: the combination was "obvious to try" with a finite, predictable set of known solutions (route activation through the existing third-party processor), and Szrek itself pointed at the phone-card activation model. No objective indicia of non-obviousness (unexpected results, long-felt unmet need solved only by the '451, commercial success, copying, industry skepticism) appear in the record I retrieved.
5. Dependent claims. Most add limitations squarely taught by the primary art: barcode containing product type + unique identifier and UPC (Szrek ¶[0038]-[0039]; claims 14–16); wager numbers generated at activation or pre-printed on the ticket (Szrek's bet selections 350 and quick-pick disclosure; Walker; claims 11–12, 18–19); draw info delivered via receipt, ticket scan, or website/app lookup (Szrek FIG. 4 receipt; Walker receipt; Missouri Lottery "Check My Tickets"; claim 3); validation including age (Szrek's age-control discussion; Gtech US 5,935,000; claims 7–10, 23–24); encryption (Llach VPN; Walker encrypted code; claim 20); multi-retailer/multi-location/multi-game aggregation (Llach's multi-merchant/multi-issuer processor; Scientific Games '263's multi-lane architecture; claims 4, 21–22). The principal risk to the claims is thus concentrated in claim 1's "third-party transaction processor … plurality of different retailers" and "secured communication" limitations — which Szrek + Llach (and the Group B activation art) address directly.

VII. Conclusion and recommended posture

• Primary ground: Claims 1–24 obvious under § 103 over Szrek (US 7,627,497 B2 / US 2004/0193464 A1) in view of Llach (US 2013/0041768 A1 / US 10,296,895 B2), with Gilmore (US 2005/0233797 A1) added for claim 11 and for the multi-lane dispensing features.
• Supporting grounds: Szrek alone (mirroring PGR2020-00084's unvacated FWD against the parent); Szrek + Llach + Walker '670 (receipt/number generation); Szrek + Llach + Scientific Games '263 (multi-lane motivation); and any lottery-POS reference + the Group B activation-processor art (InComm US 5,577,109/US 5,777,305; E2Interactive US 8,706,630; Brooks US 2010/0051691).
• Motivation summary: The same retail-POS problem, an express teaching in Szrek to borrow the cash-register activation model from prepaid instruments, a mature third-party activation-processor architecture (Llach, owned by the patentee itself) designed for exactly that model, the '451 specification's own admission that the transaction-processor route was a known alternative, and a concrete market-driven incentive to aggregate many retailers' POS activations through one intermediary — all yielding a predictable, hardware-free result with a reasonable expectation of success.
• Confidence and caveats: High confidence that the art reads on claim 1's substance; the only limitation requiring a second reference is the third-party multi-retailer processor, and Llach supplies it with encryption. The principal litigation risk is not the art but evidence quality — the Director's vacatur in IPR2024-00465 signals heightened scrutiny of expert testimony on motivation to combine; a new challenge must be grounded in the reference disclosures and unimpeachable expert testimony. I could not verify the disclosure content of Irwin (US 9,405,984), the IPR's alternative primary reference, within this session; it is not on the '451's own citation list and should be obtained from PTAB E2E before reliance.

Key sources: Szrek publication and issued patent (US 2004/0193464 A1; US 7,627,497 B2, text retrieved via Justia/FreePatentsOnline and PTAB exhibits); Llach (US 2013/0041768 A1 and US 10,296,895 B2, text retrieved via Docket Alarm/Google Patents/patentsencyclopedia); Walker US 6,267,670 B1 (FreePatentsOnline/USPTO report); Scientific Games US 2009/0163263 A1 (Google Patents/patents-review); Gilmore US 2005/0233797 A1 (Justia/RPX/Google Patents); PTACTS petition documents and USPTO Director Review decision, IPR2024-00465 (Papers 36–40); PGR2020-00084 FWD excerpts; the '451 patent's own specification, claims, and citation list as reproduced in the record above.