Invalidity dossier

US 9327186

Roulette system with side bet and random multiplier event

Current assignee: Interblock doo

Added 9/23/2026, 10:50:11 AM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US 9,327,186 B1

Title: Roulette system with side bet and random multiplier event
Inventor: Joze Pececnik
Original/Current Assignee (per source): Interblock doo (later recorded as Interblock D.D., then Interblock D.O.O.)
Application No.: US 14/714,253 | Filing/Priority Date: 2015-05-16 | Grant Date: 2016-05-03
Anticipated Expiration (source listing): 2035-05-16 | Legal Status: Active
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9327186/en

Purpose. The patent addresses roulette gaming, specifically side bets and apparatus enabling novel roulette gaming methods. The background notes that players seek new, more interesting ways to play roulette, particularly where rewards or winning odds may be enhanced. The definitions describe a roulette-based wagering system with a physical roulette wheel, a source of multiple drop balls including at least two balls of different colors, and a selection system that selects a single drop ball for a wagering event. A preferred automated version uses a processor with a random number generator configured to control most aspects of the wagering event.

Plain-language scope. In the described side-bet flow, a multiplier may be randomly selected from a group of fixed multipliers for a payout on a wager; a number and associated color may be randomly generated; the wager is resolved by comparing the randomly generated number to one from the immediately preceding round. A payout is paid when the numbers match, equal to the wager multiplied by the randomly selected multiplier; when they differ, the wager amount is collected for the house. The excerpt also describes ball-storage areas holding first and second colored balls, and a processor causing the selection system to randomly select only one ball for the next event.

What the excerpt does not establish. It does not provide the full claims or claim scope, the complete specification, the number of claims, or the exact claim language. The listed classification codes and prior-art keyword list are indexing labels, not findings. Because the source is explicitly excerpted and omits text, any details beyond those quoted above—including figures, dependent-claim limitations, and the full description—are not established here. Assignee entries reflect recorded assignments only; no independent verification was performed, and no litigation, validity, or prior-art analysis is offered or implied.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:54:06 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9327186. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.