Interblock v. Merkur Gaming: Automated Dice Patent Suit Dismissed in 104 Days
Interblock D.O.O. filed suit against Merkur Gaming US in the Nevada District Court, asserting two patents covering automated dice gaming systems including Charisma Craps and Charisma Sic-Bo. The case closed just 104 days after filing when Interblock voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) — before any answer or summary judgment motion was served.
Automated dice patent suit exits Nevada court before merits reached
Interblock D.O.O., a Slovenian gaming technology company and holder of patents covering automated dice game systems, filed this infringement action on 10 September 2025 in the Nevada District Court — a natural venue given Nevada’s concentration of commercial gaming activity. The suit named Merkur Gaming US, LLC as defendant and asserted US11325025B2 and USRE046738E, both directed at automated dice gaming products including the Charisma Craps and Charisma Sic-Bo platforms.
The case terminated on 23 December 2025 when Interblock filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims without prejudice. Because Merkur Gaming had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing — it took legal effect upon filing with no court intervention required. The without-prejudice designation means Interblock’s patent claims survive the dismissal and could, in principle, be reasserted in a future action.
A resolution in 104 days, before any substantive litigation activity on the defence side, typically signals that the parties either reached an out-of-court accommodation or that the plaintiff identified a strategic reason to pause or reposition the litigation. The public record is silent on whether a settlement, licence negotiation, or tactical recalibration drove the withdrawal. No merits findings were made, leaving the validity and scope of both asserted patents entirely unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 104 days
104 days — well below the median 2–3 year patent case lifecycle in US district courts
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): a self-executing exit with no court role
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives a plaintiff an absolute right to dismiss before the defendant files an answer or summary judgment motion. The notice takes effect the moment it is filed — no judicial approval is required and no order is entered. This procedural posture means the court made no rulings on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement, leaving the substantive dispute entirely open.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice confirmed — but public record is silent on terms
The dismissal notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Interblock retains the right to refile these patent claims against Merkur Gaming or related entities. A dismissal with prejudice would have barred any future assertion of the same claims. Importantly, the public record does not disclose whether the parties reached any private agreement — a licence, covenant not to sue, or settlement — that may have prompted the withdrawal. The distinction matters significantly for competitive intelligence purposes.
Refiling remains possibleMerkur Gaming escapes judgment — but patent risk persists
Merkur Gaming US never served an answer, meaning it made no invalidity arguments on the record and obtained no favourable ruling. While the dismissal removes the immediate litigation burden, the without-prejudice status means Interblock’s patents remain live threats. Merkur’s failure to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity leaves it exposed to a renewed action, potentially in a different venue or with amended claim theories.
No declaratory relief obtainedAutomated dice gaming IP landscape remains unsettled
With no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no infringement finding on record, both asserted patents retain their full presumption of validity. Competitors and operators deploying automated dice game products — including Craps and Sic-Bo variants — cannot rely on this dismissal as evidence of patent weakness. The case suggests Interblock is actively monitoring its automated dice game IP rights, consistent with an enforcement posture that may resurface against Merkur or third-party suppliers.
Patents presumed validFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Interblock D.O.O. | Individual | Gaming technology innovator — holder of US11325025B2 and USRE046738E covering automated dice systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Merkur Gaming US, LLC | Company | US subsidiary of Merkur Gaming group, developer and supplier of electronic gaming machinesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrews E Samuels | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffey J Lyons | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin P Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin W. Kirsch | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark S Einsiedel | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Naomi Price | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel A Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker & Hostetler LLP | Law Firm | Representing Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Schwartz Law, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Interblock D.O.O.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander S. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry F. Irwin | Attorney | Counsel for Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Iftekhar Zaim | Attorney | Counsel for Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Colby Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason J. Keener | Attorney | Counsel for Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Campbell & Williams | Law Firm | Representing Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Irwin IP LLP | Law Firm | Representing Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Merkur Gaming US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ citing Ninth Circuit authority confirming the self-executing nature of this procedural device. The verbatim reference to Sneed v. Nevada Dep’t of Corr. and Duke Energy Trading underscores that no court order was needed or entered. Critically, the notice names additional defendants — adp Merkur GmbH and Spintec d.o.o. — not listed in the primary case caption, suggesting the suit may have been broader in scope than the headline parties indicate. No infringement, validity, or damages findings were made.
US11325025B2 & USRE046738E — Automated Dice Gaming Systems
US11325025B2 (application no. US17/063493) and USRE046738E (application no. US15/398961) both relate to automated dice gaming systems — the technology underpinning electronic versions of casino table games such as Craps and Sic-Bo. USRE046738E is a reissue patent, a designation that indicates the original patent was returned to the USPTO for correction or claim broadening after grant. Reissue patents carry the same legal weight as utility patents but may reflect an intentional expansion of claim coverage relative to the original grant.
Automated dice game systems occupy a commercially significant niche in the electronic gaming equipment market, where operators seek to replicate traditional table game mechanics with lower staffing costs and greater data integrity. Interblock’s Charisma-branded products are established in this segment, and asserting both a utility patent and a reissue patent simultaneously suggests a layered enforcement strategy designed to capture a wide range of competitive implementations. Any gaming equipment manufacturer, distributor, or casino operator deploying automated dice game technology should assess exposure to these two patents before launching or expanding product lines.
Should you run an FTO against US11325025B2 and USRE046738E?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, distributes, or deploys automated dice gaming equipment — including electronic Craps, Sic-Bo, or analogous table game systems — these two Interblock patents represent active FTO risk. The without-prejudice dismissal of this case provides no safe harbour: neither patent has been found invalid or not infringed. The inclusion of a reissue patent warrants particular attention, as reissued claims can cover product configurations that diverged from the original patent’s scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map claim language from US11325025B2 and USRE046738E against product specifications, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and benchmark against Interblock’s broader portfolio. Given the active enforcement posture suggested by this filing, a proactive FTO analysis is advisable before any automated dice game product launch or market expansion in jurisdictions where Interblock holds IP rights.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11325025B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar automated dice and electronic gaming patent cases in US courts
Cases involving automated gaming system patents in the Nevada District Court and related US venues, including prior Interblock enforcement actions and electronic table game IP disputes.
What this case signals for the gaming technology IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in a gaming patent case rarely means the dispute is over — it often signals repositioning.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves full enforcement optionality for Interblock
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals without prejudice leave the patent holder’s claims fully intact. Interblock can refile against Merkur Gaming or assert the same patents against other automated dice game suppliers. Companies operating in this product category should treat the dismissal as a pause, not a resolution, and maintain FTO clearance accordingly.
Nevada remains a strategically significant venue for gaming patent disputes
Filing in the Nevada District Court reflects the geographic concentration of gaming industry operators and testifies to Interblock’s venue strategy. Patent holders in the gaming sector consistently favour Nevada for its familiarity with industry terminology and proximity to key commercial actors. Any company with automated gaming products deployed in Nevada should monitor Interblock’s patent portfolio for renewed activity.
D.O.O. v Merkur — key questions answered
Interblock filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice dismissing all claims without prejudice on 23 December 2025. This means the action is closed but Interblock retains the right to refile the same patent claims against Merkur Gaming or related entities. No merits rulings were made on validity or infringement of US11325025B2 or USRE046738E.
Interblock asserted two patents: US11325025B2 (application US17/063493) and USRE046738E (application US15/398961), both covering automated dice gaming systems including the Charisma Craps and Charisma Sic-Bo platforms. USRE046738E is a reissue patent, indicating the original claims were reviewed and potentially broadened by the USPTO after initial grant.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early dismissal. A pre-answer voluntary dismissal of this speed is consistent with a negotiated out-of-court resolution such as a licence or settlement, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to reposition the litigation. No discovery had occurred and no court rulings had been entered, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved on the public record.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice carries no validity finding. US11325025B2 and USRE046738E retain their full statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Competitors or third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as evidence that either patent is invalid, unenforceable, or non-infringed.
Interblock was represented by Baker & Hostetler LLP and Schwartz Law, PLLC, with attorneys including Kevin W. Kirsch and Samuel A. Schwartz. Merkur Gaming retained Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Irwin IP LLP, and Campbell & Williams, with attorneys including Barry F. Irwin and J. Colby Williams. Kirkland & Ellis’s involvement suggests Merkur had assembled a substantial defence team prior to the dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.