ORYX Gaming integrates content with Playtech

Rarestone Gaming

Rare stone is a Playtech-owned game development studio based in the UK. Rarestone was founded in 2019 to create “innovative and engaging” online slots. The following are among the most popular Rarestone slots:

• Flames of the Phoenix
• Fu Fortunes Megaways
• Great Bear
• Mighty Africa: 4096 Ways
• Safari Gold Megaways
• Solstice Celebration

Arcade Games

One category that will always give you plenty of winning opportunities as well as plenty of entertainment, is the Arcade Games. When you log into any of the casinos using Playtech’s software, do have a look through this category, and we especially recommend Pop Bingo, which is a single player bingo game.

Other arcade games worthy of some attention include the Bonus Bowling game, their Dice Twister game, and the fun to play soccer themed Penalty Shootout game.

Player Skill Levels

You'll find players of all skill levels playing at Winner Poker, but the relative lack of high stakes games (excluding their tournaments) means that experienced players and high rollers may be drawn elsewhere.

The fact that only Hold 'Em and Omaha games are offered, two favourites of players who are just starting out, means that you might be paired up with a lot of beginners. Mind you, that's no bad thing, as it means you may be able to work the table to your advantage!

CLICK HERE TO PLAY NOW

Game Selection

Obviously, the first thing which comes to mind when one thinks of Playtech’s slots are progressive jackpots. Over the years, they have developed many top jackpot slots, including the now-defunct Marvel Mystery Progressive Jackpot Network games. Their Gladiator and Beach Life progressives are still very much active, though, and they have been joined by new progressive jackpot networks, such as the DC Universe series and Age of Gods progressive series of slots.

Playtech’s non-progressive slots are equally as impressive and include top titles such as The Mummy, Alchemist’s Lab, Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven, Top Gun, Marilyn Monroe, Adventures in Wonderland and more.

10. Scratchcards: Yes, they have them!

Ladbrokes' Scratchcards8/10 Punkte

• Numerous scratchcards on offer
• Caters to anyone interested
• Large variety
• Seven options in total

Visit Gala

Online Bingo Ladbrokes has some genuinely excellent scratchcards that you can play. The Super Pots Scratchcard, Wild Jewels Scratchcard and also the ever-popular Deal Or No Deal scratchcards are just some of the scratchcards that can be played at Ladbrokes Bingo. If you are a fan of scratchcards, look no further. Ladbrokes Bingo offers you seven scratchgames for you to play.

Desert Treasure

This is another fun 5-reel slot by Playtech and unlike the many fantastic games by the studio, Desert Treasure does not come with the stunning visuals or the huge jackpot. Just like A Night Out, however, it has an attractive RTP of 97.05%, which guarantees small but regular and quite reliable winnings. Up to 20 pay lines may be activated, while 3 or more scatters trigger 10 free spins. Moreover, there is a fun and rewarding pick-me style bonus game.

Latest Offers from BetFred Casino

Best Power Play Jackpot Slots in 2021

Do you know how many online slots categories the online casino market has? There are main categories like classic slots, fruit slots, video slots, 3D slots and a few more. Then, there are subcategories of the video slots that include standard reels, Megaways, Progressive Jackpot Slots, Cluster Pay, and the latest addition called Power Play jackpot slots.

The PowerPlay slots are the innovation of Playtech Gaming to enter the challenging jackpot slot world with a bang. Increasing jackpots or Progressive jackpot slots are old news, and many developers have their version of progressive jackpot slots theme.

Playtech is a renowned name in the iGaming industry, popular for its innovative themes and HD graphics. The introduction of PowerPlay jackpot slots does not shock players as they always expect spectacular ideas from their favourite developer. PowerPlay jackpot slots are structures with well-organised jackpots, that are complemented by other exciting bonus features. These power play jackpot slots are a great attraction for the jackpot hunters who are always looking for a slot with massive win chances.

You can play these power play jackpots slots on Easy Slots casino with only a £10 deposit and free registration (Full Ts & Cs Apply). Read this power play slots article to understand the jackpot system on these slot games.

Playtech Poker Software

Playtech offers over 15 different poker variants that are suited to different types of players. The games have other language options and various foreign currencies. They also include fun side activities and tiny games. You can play blackjack, video poker, and progressive slot machines, among other games. Players can also participate in organized poker tournaments rather than internet tournaments.

VIP systems, gift choices, and tournament tokens are all available as rewards. All poker games and competitions are linked to Playtech’s software to ensure continuous play and payouts.

FAQ

Here, we try to provide answers to the most interesting and recurring questions asked by players. Take a look.

Awards

2016 winner of the International Corporate Event Awards for ICE

4 awards at the 2013 EGR B2B Awards – International designer, developer, licensor and provider of software and services

The Grant Thornton Quoted Company’s Aim to Main Award Winner

WhichBingo Award Winner for the best designer, developer and licensor of online gambling software for both PC, TV, Mobile and land-based gambling on 16 May 2014

The Best Software Supplier of the Year in October 2014 at eGR Italy Award Company

Gala Coral a Playtech licensee was the winner of the eGaming Review Operator of the Year of eGR Operator Awards London.

May 23rd, 2016 WhichBingo Awards London for the best Bingo Software and Unique Game

June 2nd, 2016 the global leading Omni-channel gaming software, systems and service supplier at the eGR B2B Awards London

The 2016 Winner of the Best Digital Industry Supplier of the Global Gaming Awards given based on its considerable achievement for a period of one year.

🥇 Playtech Online Casinos, List Updated: 2021 - Tunf.com

MENUMENU

• 👍 Casinos
  • 🥇 Best Online Casinos
  • 🆕 New Online Casinos
  • 👩 Live Casinos
  • 📱 Mobile Casinos
  • 👴🏻 Oldest Casinos

  • When autocomplete results are available use up and down arrows to review and enter to go to the desired page. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

  • Online Casinos by Location (198+ Countries)
    • UK
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Canada
    • Croatia
    • Czech
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Ireland
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Russia
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • South Africa
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
    • 日本
  • 💸 By Payment Methods (152)
    • AstroPay
    • Boku
    • Bitcoin
    • EcoPayz
    • EntroPay
    • Euteller
    • GiroPay
    • iDeal
    • instaDebit
    • Maestro
    • Mastercard
    • Neteller
    • Skrill
    • Siru Mobile
    • Sofort
    • Phone Bill
    • 💙 Paypal UK
    • Paysafecard
    • Qiwi
    • Trustly
    • Visa Card
    • Wire Transfer
    • Zimpler
    • ➡ More (152)
  • ⚕ By Software (136)
    • Aristocrat
    • Barcrest
    • Betsoft
    • Blueprint Gaming
    • ELK Studios
    • Evolution Gaming
    • IGT
    • Iron Dog
    • Isoftbet
    • Leander Games
    • Microgaming
    • Nextgen
    • Netent
    • Nektan
    • Novomatic
    • Quickspin
    • Playtech
    • Playson
    • Play'n GO
    • Push Gaming
    • Rabcat
    • Red Tiger G.
    • Thunderkick
    • WMS
    • Yggdrasil
    • ➡ More (136)
  • ⚡ Online Casino Finder
  • 🌟 Casinos with VIP Prog.
  • 📰 News
  • 🔴 Live Games
    • Live Roulette
    • Live Blackjack
    • Live Baccarat
    • Dream Catcher
    • Show All
• 🎰 Free Slots
  • 🆕 New Slots
  • 🔝 Popular Slots
  • 📈 Slots with High RTP
  • 📱 Mobile Slots
  • Best Slots Sites

  • When autocomplete results are available use up and down arrows to review and enter to go to the desired page. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

  • ⚕ Software
    • Amatic
    • Aristocrat
    • Barcrest
    • Betsoft
    • Big Time G.
    • Blueprint G.
    • ELK Studios
    • Iron Dog
    • Isoftbet
    • Leander
    • Merkur
    • Microgaming
    • Nektan
    • NetEnt
    • Nextgen G.
    • Novomatic
    • Pariplay
    • Play'n GO
    • Playson
    • Playtech
    • Push Gaming
    • Pragmatic Play
    • Quickspin
    • Rabcat
    • Red Tiger G.
    • Thunderkick
    • WMS
    • Yggdrasil
  • 💡 Features
    • Cluster Pays
    • Bonus Feature
    • Colossal Reels
    • Expanding Wilds
    • Extra Wild
    • Free Spins
    • Gamble Feature
    • Mystery Bonus
    • Multiplier Feature
    • Multiplier Wild
    • Nudges
    • Stampede Bonus Feature
    • Sticky Win
    • Special Features
    • Substitution Symbols
    • Scatter Pays
    • Stacked Symbol
    • Stacked Wilds
    • Sticky Wilds
    • Sticky Win
    • Pick Bonus Feature
    • Quest Feature
    • Respin Feature
    • Retrigger Feature
    • Walking Wild
    • Win Both Ways
    • Wild Symbols
    • Wild Reels
    • Wheel Feature Bonus
  • 🐵 Themes
    • Action
    • Adventure
    • Adult
    • Ancient
    • Animals
    • Asian
    • Beach
    • Branded
    • Casino
    • Christmas
    • Classic
    • Diamonds
    • Dragons
    • Fairytales
    • Fantasy
    • Food'n Drink
    • Fruit
    • Ghosts
    • History
    • King
    • Love
    • Magic
    • Music
    • Nature
    • Space
    • Sports
    • Pirates
    • Pyramids
    • Wizards

Online Casinos ↪ By Software ↪ Playtech Online Casino Sites, List: 2021

Thanks for signing up to the Breaking News email

{{ #verifyErrors }}{{ message }}{{ /verifyErrors }}{{ ^verifyErrors }}Something went wrong. Please try again later{{ /verifyErrors }}

The Israeli gaming tycoon Teddy Sagi swooped in a £460m rescue takeover of the troubled spread-betting firm Plus500.

The opportunistic move by his Playtech gaming software company comes after a fortnight of turmoil for Plus500. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) forced it to freeze the accounts of tens of thousands of UK customers last month to let it carry out money-laundering checks.

Three weeks ago Plus500 was worth £900m, but the AIM-listed stock has been devastated by the freeze, which wiped off about two-thirds of its value at the worst point of the crisis. The shares rose 4.5p to 374.5p yesterday, below Playtech’s 400p offer price.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS

Every day, thousands of players visit our site in search of the best online casinos. We choose only the best casinos, with the best games and player experience.

Gaming Variety

William Hill Casino goes all-out to ensure that players have access to all the slots, card, table and other games they wish to enjoy. Some of the most popular games include these top attractions: European Roulette, Gladiator Jackpot, Blackjack, Little Britain, Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk, Halloween Fortune, Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven, Piggies and the Wolf, Plenty O’ Fortune, Casino Hold’em and the Avengers.

A wide selection of Marvel games, jackpots games, scratch cards, casual games, live casino games, video poker games and other games is readily available to players at William Hill Casino. Affordable betting stakes and free-play games have won the hearts of players across the United Kingdom.

Casino Support at BetFred Casino

BetFred Casino have 24/7 Support which is available all day, every day to answer any questions that you may have whilst playing with BetFred Casino. They also provide 24/7 email support for players who want to email rather than speak to somebody on the phone.

Club Dice Table Games

Categories

• Business

Progressive Jackpot Games

Playtech is behind some of the most popular progressive jackpot slots today. Its collection of progressives is immense and some of the jackpots exceed $1 million. With nearly 60 different games within this category, the choice is huge and players can try out various themes and slot series. However, it should be noted that some casinos that offer Playtech’s progressives pay out the jackpots in monthly installments. This means that it could take years to receive the full amount of a particularly large jackpot.

Popular progressives by Playtech include the Age of the Gods slots series, launched after the discontinuation of the Marvel slots. There are many more exciting slots with progressive jackpots by this studio – Jackpot Giant, Gladiator, Funky Fruits, the Sporting Legends jackpot slots, Great Blue Jackpot, Beach Life, Esmeralda, Thai Temple, and the DC Superheroes slots (Justice League, Man of Steel, etc.). In addition, Playtech’s progressive jackpot network also includes selected games from its subsidiaries and the most popular one certainly is Leprechaun’s Luck by Ash Gaming.

Spin Till You Win Roulette™ Game Details

Roulette just got a whole lot more interesting with this online version of the game where, as the name implies, you just spin till you win. Developed by well-known developer Playtech Gaming, the game immerses the player in what feels like a live game of roulette. The rules are very similar to standard roulette, and the bonus can be triggered at any time, creating suspense from start to finish.

Britain's Got Talent

Another well-known release from the software provider is Britain’s Got Talent, which is, of course, based upon the televised talent show which has gone on to see variations in over 48 different countries, making it one of the world’s most successful television programmes in history.

Other notable releases include Ace Adventurer, Adventures in Wonderland, Chests of Plenty, Gold Rush Showdown, King Arthur, and Leprechaun’s Luck – the latter of which inspired many of Playtech’s Irish themed games.

Blog

Best Low Variance Slots

Posted on Wed, 26/01/2022

If you’re new to the online casino world, slot variance or slot volatility refers to how frequently you’re likely to win on a slots game and how big those payouts can be. Some people prefer ...

Read more...

Highest RTP Slots

Posted on Wed, 26/01/2022

Higher RTP is one of the main criteria people judge a slots game on today. Slots players are discerning, always searching for the best value for money. This blog walks through how higher RTP slots ...

Read more...

What is the Hold and Spin Feature in Slots

Posted on Wed, 26/01/2022

This blog looks at what the classic ‘hold and spin’ feature in slots is, how it started out, and the software developers deploying it today while also taking a snapshot of games using hold and ...

Read more...

The Top 7 Colour Themed Online Slots

Posted on Fri, 15/01/2021

Blue Wizard Online Slot – Playtech GamingWave your wand and create some magic in Blue Wizard online slot UK by Playtech Gaming, as there are numerous chance to win real money materializing by ...

Read more...

The Top 8 Meditation Themed Online Slots

Posted on Thu, 14/01/2021

7 Chakras Online Slot – Saucify GamingFind your inner peace as you spin the reels of 7 Chakras online slot UK by Saucify Gaming, where there are many chance to win real money and potentially ...

Read more...

The Top 6 Car Themed Online Slots

Posted on Wed, 13/01/2021

Racing For Pinks Online Slot – MicrogamingRev then engine, grip the steering wheel, and put the petal to the metal in Racing For Pinks online slot UK by mega online casino games developer ...

Read more...

The Top 7 Yggdrasil Online Slots With The Best Animations

Posted on Tue, 12/01/2021

Trolls Bridge Online SlotThese goofy and strange looking guards of the path to the castle, in Trolls Bridge Online Slots UK, are more harm to themselves than you yet have many generous chances to ...

Read more...

The 6 Best Sun And Moon Themed Online Slots

Posted on Mon, 11/01/2021

Assassin Moon Online Slot – Triple Edge Studios Use the cover of darkness in Assassin Moon Online Slots UK by developer Triple Edge Studios, as players are placed on a mission to grab many ...

Read more...

The 5 Best Luchador Wrestling Online Slots

Posted on Sun, 10/01/2021

Nacho Libre Online Slot – IsoftBetPull on the mask, tie up the colourful cape and step into the wrestling ring in Nacho Libre Online Slots UK by online casino games designer IsoftBet, as there is ...

Read more...

The Top 7 Prince Or Princess Themed Online Slots

Posted on Sat, 09/01/2021

The Sand Princess Online Slot – 2 by 2 GamingForget being stuck up in a cold castle in the middle of a forest as this royal rules the desert in The Sand Princess Online Slot by 2 By 2 Gaming, ...

Read more...

12345678next ›last »

Betfredand Playtech have extended their long-term partnership by another four years.

Withthis novel agreement, Betfred’s gaming niche will continue being powered byPlaytech. Gaming enthusiasts get to enjoy Betfred’s casino services driven byPlaytech’s exclusive software for the next four years. Currently, Betfredoffers bingo, live dealer games and poker games.

Theextended Playtech-Betfred deal comes as an extension of the latter’s exclusivelive casino initiative. Betfred had launched their live casino in 2018.

TheChief Operating Officer, Shimon Akad, Playtech stated that they were pleased topartner with Betfred and was looking forward to their commitment to deliveringacross four key verticals. He referred to Betfred as a top bookmaker thatoperates independently and is a viable partner for Playtech. He added that itwas the operator’s decision to invest and expand their live casino which caughtPlaytech’s attention and prompted them to take this partnership to anotherlevel through the deal extension.

Akadpraised Betfred’s live dealer casino platform and said that they wereoptimistic about the continued association that was aimed at deliveringinnovative content supported by their top-class technology.

ManagingDirector, Betfred, Rakesh Chablani, said: “Having had a strong and successfulpartnership with Playtech for over ten years now, the extension of ourexclusive agreement for another four years represents an exciting opportunityto continue growing our business.”

In2019, Playtech recorded revenue of $1.64bn. This was a year-on-year rise of22%. Stats indicate that the adjusted EBITDA was recorded at an 11% increase at€383.1m for that period.

1. Cranway Limited is the proprietor of a patent relating to computer gaming. The field of the invention is described in paragraph 1 of the patent in the following terms:

"This invention relates to an interactive, real time, realistic 'home' computer gaming system using general purpose computers. The system comprises a central or host computer, a plurality of terminal computers forming player stations remote from the host, communicating means for connecting each of the terminals to the host, and program means for operating the computers and the communication between the terminals and host. Aspects of the invention concern auditing and security to ensure fairness for players and prevent players defeating the outcome of a game; fast, efficient communication to enable reliable, low cost, real time, realistic operation; accounting; and enabling players to play a variety of games."

2. The scope of the monopoly claimed by the patent is set out in claim 1. Leaving out the various numerals to identify particular elements, what is claimed is as follows:

"A gaming system for playing an interactive casino game, comprising a host computer, at least one terminal computer forming a player station, communication means for connecting the terminal computer to the host computer, and program means for operating the terminal computer, the host computer and the communication means wherein:

a. the terminal computer has a processor and connected to the processor a video display unit and a data entry means;

b. the terminal computer has terminal program means for:

- establishing a secure communication with the host computer;

- generating simulation output appropriate to a game including an account status of a player playing the game; and

- generating a terminal data packet representative of a valid user response generated by activation of the data entry means, and sending the data packet to the host computer;

c. The host computer has program means for

- generating a random number for a game being played on a terminal computer within preset criteria for that game in response to a valid terminal data packet received from said computer terminal; and

- storing an account status for a player playing the game;

characterised in that:

- the terminal computer is sited at a location remote from the host computer;

- the communication means is operable to connect the terminal computer to the host computer via a public telecommunication link;

- the host computer has program means for generating host control data packets for controlling the simulation output of the terminal computer;

- processing is distributed between the host computer and the terminal computer such that a game result and an account status are processed at the host computer and the simulation output is processed at the terminal computer so that only the minimum relevant information is transmitted between the host and terminal computers; and

- the simulation output is generated in response to host control data packets received by the terminal computer from the host computer".

3. The original inventor and original proprietor of the patent is Dr. Julian Menashe. While Dr. Menashe was the proprietor of the patent there was litigation which went to the Court of Appeal, to which I will refer in due course. Cranway Limited is now the proprietor of the patent and claims that the patent has been infringed. The claim is made against Playtech Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and the Horserace Totalisator Board, commonly known as the Tote, which is a public corporation.

4. On 3rd August 2006 Master Bowles made an order permitting Playtech Limited to be served outside the jurisdiction. Playtech has now applied to set aside that order for service outside the jurisdiction and the Tote has applied to strike out the particulars of claim on the ground that they do not disclose a cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success.

5. One of the peculiarities of the claim in the present case is that both the Tote and Playtech are alleged to be legally responsible for a number of other entities which are either subsidiaries of the defendant in question or, in the case of Playtech, what are called "affiliates". I will deal with those matters later.

6. The claim for infringement is dealt with, so far as Playtech is concerned, in paragraph 8 of the particulars of claim. Infringement is described in section 60 of the Patents Act 1977 in the following terms. Subsection (1) provides, so far as is material:

"Subject to the provisions of this section, a person infringes a patent for an invention if, but only if, while the patent is in force, he does any of the following things in the United Kingdom in relation to the invention without the consent of the proprietor of the patent, that is to say (a) where the invention is a product, he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it whether for disposal or otherwise".

7. Subsection (2) provides, so far as is material:

"Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person (other than the proprietor of the patent) also infringes a patent for an invention if, while the patent is in force and without the consent of the proprietor, he supplies or offers to supply in the United Kingdom a person other than a licensee or other person entitled to work the invention with any of the means, relating to an essential element of the invention, for putting the invention into effect when he knows, or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom."

8. Paragraph 8 of the particulars of claim alleges that Playtech has carried out certain acts in the United Kingdom without the consent of the claimant. Those acts are particularised in the following terms:

"(1) making, disposing of, offering to dispose of, using, importing and keeping for disposal or otherwise, systems for playing interactive casino games within the meaning of the claims of the Patent and each of those claims ('the Playtech Gaming Systems'). (a) The Playtech Gaming Systems include computer systems specifically adapted by the installation and configuration of Playtech's software including, inter alia, Playtech's Client Facing, Server Side, Front End and Back End software, and its Universal Gaming Platform (together 'the Playtech Software'). (b) Pending disclosure and requests for further information, the Claimant relies upon the provision of the Playtech Gaming Systems to the Tote (as defined below)."

9. The opening rubric of those particulars of infringement simply follow the words of section 60(1) without any real attempt to analyse or identify what parts of section 60 are in fact relied on. The only act which is pleaded is the provision of the Playtech Gaming Systems to the Tote, but even the Playtech Gaming Systems, spelt as they are with capital letters, are not really identified except in so far as they are said to be systems for supplying interactive games within the meaning of the claims. So the identification of what is actually complained of is dealt with only in the most vague and general terms.

10. Paragraph 8(2) of the particulars of claim says this:

"further and in the alternative, the supply and offer to supply of the Playtech Software and/or constituent parts thereof, each such part being mean relating to an essential element of the invention for putting the invention of the Patent into effect when Playtech knew and/pr it was obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances that those means are and were suitable for putting, and are and were intended to put, the invention of the Patent into effect in the United Kingdom."

11. Again, that tracks very closely the words of the statute itself. The act which is pleaded is the supply and offer to supply either 'the Playtech Software' or constituent parts of it.

12. The general requirements for pleadings are set out in Part 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Those require that particulars of claim must include "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies". What are to be pleaded are facts, not legal conclusions.

13. In NEC Semi-Conductors Limited v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2006] ECWA Civ 25, Mummery LJ said this:

"While it is good sense not to be pernickety about pleadings, the basic requirement that material facts should be pleaded is there for a good reason so that the other side can respond to the pleaded case by way of admission or denial of facts, thereby defining the issues for decision for the benefit of the parties and the court. Proper pleading of the material facts is essential for the orderly progress of the case and for its sound determination. The definition of the issues has an impact on such important matters as disclosure of relevant documents and the relevant oral evidence to be adduced at trial. In my view, the fact that the nature of the grievance may be obvious to the respondent or that the respondent can ask for further information to be supplied by the claimant are not normally valid excuses for a claimant's failure to formulate and serve a properly pleaded case setting out the material facts in support of the cause of action."

14. In the case of a patent action there is a further requirement imposed by Part 63.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and paragraph 11 of the Practice Direction. Part 63.9 requires the statement of case in a claim for patent infringement to contain "particulars as set out in the practice direction". Paragraph 11 of the Practice Direction states:

"In a claim for infringement of a patent (1) the statement of case must (a) show which of the claims in the specification of the patent are alleged to be infringed; and (b) give at least one example of each type of infringement alleged".

15. Mr. Nicholson submits that what that means is that there must be an example of one type of infringement falling within section 60(1) and one type of infringement falling within section 60(2) where both sub-sections are relied upon. I do not agree. The function of pleadings in patent actions, just as in other types of litigation, is to give the defendant fair notice of what is being alleged against him. If Mr. Nicholson is right there are endless possibilities of a defendant being taken by surprise. What the practice direction, in my judgment, requires is that the claimant gives an example of making the product, an example of importing the product, an example of using the product, an example of disposing of the product and so on. If he cannot plead an example, then he should not plead that type of infringement. In addition, if the sale of product A and product B are each alleged to infringe the patent, then an example of each type of product must be alleged.

16. That this is the function of particulars in a patent action is, in my judgment, made clear by the notes to Part 63.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules as contained in paragraph 2F-13 of Civil Procedure. What the notes say, omitting reference to authority is this:

"The patentee need not give his construction of his patent, the function of particulars of infringements being merely to point out to the defendant what specific act on his part is complained of so as to prevent surprise at the trial."

17. So it is specific acts, that is to say, facts, which must be pleaded by way of particular of infringement and it must be a specific fact in relation to each potential way in which the patent is alleged to have been infringed. In the present case all that seems to me to be pleaded in paragraph 8 of the particulars of claim is the provision of a system. As pleaded this can only be an example of disposing of the product. As regards all other forms of infringement, no examples have been given.

18. In the litigation which I have already mentioned, reported as Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd v. William Hill Organization Ltd [2003] RPC 575, the Court of Appeal considered a different question which arose under this very same patent. The Court was plainly of the view in that case that the patent claimed a system which was a combination of hardware and the software used to run it. The particular question which the Court had to decide was whether the location of a server outside the United Kingdom gave a defence to a claim under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 if the claim had otherwise been a good one. If the claim had not included the server itself, then the question which the Court was asked to decide would have been a wholly irrelevant question.

19. Here what seems to be alleged is that the first defendant, Playtech, has provided software. There is no allegation that it has provided the hardware. In order to infringe a patent claiming a product the defendant must fall within all the integers of the claim. In the present case, on the face of it, the defendant does not. Mr. Nicholson argues that the boundary between a computer program, as such, and the claim to a product whose functionality depends on operating a program on known hardware is a grey area that warrants a trial. I do not agree. If it is alleged that the system is restricted to the software alone then, it seems to me, that that ought to be made clear as a matter of pleading at the very least.

20. The claim under section 60(2) is that the first defendant has supplied means relating to an essential element in the invention intended to enable it to be put into effect in the United Kingdom. Mr. Speck makes the point that it is not pleaded that the supply took place within the United Kingdom. He points to the opening words of paragraph 8 which alleges that "Playtech has carried out the following acts in the United Kingdom without the consent of the Claimant", and points out that when the particulars of that allegation are given there is no further mention of the United Kingdom. As a matter of pleading, it seems to me that it does just plead a cause of action although it is one which cries out for further information.

21. The allegation of infringement against Playtech also alleged that Playtech is responsible not only for things that it did itself but also for things done by other companies. This vicarious responsibility is put in two different ways. Firstly, that Playtech procured tortious acts to be carried out by others and, second, that the acts in question were part of a common design. No particulars of this allegation are given; no act is identified which Playtech is alleged to have procured and the common design was not identified. Nor is there alleged any fact from which it is said the common design can be inferred.

22. This question was considered by the Court of Appeal in Generics (UK) Ltd v. H Lundbeck A/S [2006] EWCA Civ 1261. In the course of his judgment, Jacob LJ said at paragraph 21:

"As the judge observed quite a lot of this is conclusory in nature. Asserting that the defendants have combined together does not mean in itself that they have combined together. What really matters is the detail which has been supplied to show the combination."

In the present case, no detail has been provided at all.

23. In The Mead Corporation and another v. Riverwood Multiple Packaging Division of Riverwood International Corportation [1997] FSR 484, Laddie J had to consider a similar sort of question. He was dealing with the question of service out of the jurisdiction which requires evidence to be given as well as simply a pleading, a question to which I shall return. At page 490 Laddie J said this:

"The court must be satisfied that there are proper grounds before it allows foreign parties to be exposed to the expense and inconvenience of joinder in proceedings here. In particular, it is not enough merely to point to the fact that the English and the foreign defendants are closely related to one another either by shareholding or otherwise. It is for that reason that in Chefaro the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the fact that the foreign corporation had overall control, both financial and voting, of the English defendant was not sufficient by itself to enable the court to conclude that there is a good arguable case that the necessary inference of assistance or common design could be drawn. Some evidence that the foreign party was actually involved in furthering the common design of infringement must be shown to the court or, as Glidewell L.J. put it, it is necessary for the evidence to show that the foreign party 'took part' in the primary act of infringement. Material which is neutral on this critical issue is of no assistance. It follows that material which merely shows that the foreign and domestic defendants are closely associated with each other, or which shows that the parent regards itself as its subsidiaries as a single economic unit throws no light on the issue of who took part in the acts alleged to infringe the patent."

24. As I have said, Cranway applied to serve Playtech Limited outside the jurisdiction. The application was made under Part 6.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That rule requires that the application for permission "must be supported by written evidence stating (a) the grounds on which the application is made and the paragraph or paragraphs of rule 6.20 relied on ; (b) that the claimant believes that his claim has a reasonable prospect of success; and (c) the defendant's address or, if not known, in what place or country the defendant is, or is likely, to be found."

25. The evidence which was shown to the Master did not address the merits of the underlying claim against Playtech at all, although it did contain a statement by Cranway's solicitor that he believed that the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. Mr. Nicholson argues that evidence of that nature coupled with particulars of claim verified by a statement of truth are adequate to support an application for permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction.

26. The traditional approach to applications for permission to serve outside the jurisdiction was discussed by the House of Lords in Seaconsar Far East Limited v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran [1994] 1AC 438. In particular at page 451, Lord Goff quoted with approval a statement made by Lord Davey in the House of Lords in an earlier case. Lord Davey said this:

"Rule 4 of [Order 11] prescribes that the application is to be supported by evidence stating that in the belief of the deponent the plaintiff has a good cause of action, and no such leave is to be granted unless it be made sufficiently to appear to the court or judge that the case is a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction under this Order. This does not, of course, mean that a mere statement by any deponent who is put forward to make the affidavit that he believes that there is a good cause of action is sufficient. On the other hand, the court is not, on an application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, or on a motion made to discharge an order for such service, called upon to try the action or express a premature opinion on its merits, and where there are conflicting statements as to material facts, any such opinion must necessarily be based on insufficient materials. But I think that the application should be supported by an affidavit stating facts which, if proved, would be a sufficient foundation for the alleged cause of action, and, as a rule, the affidavit should be by some person acquainted with the facts, or, at any rate, should specify the sources or persons from whom the deponent derives his information."

27. Lord Goff then considered other authorities and summarised his eventual conclusion at page 456 as follows:

"Once it is recognised that, so far as the merits of the plaintiff's claim are concerned, no more is required than that the evidence should disclose that there is a serious issue to be tried, it is difficult to see how this matter, although it falls within the ambit of the court's discretion, has not in practice to be established in any event. This is because it is very difficult to conceive how a judge could, in the proper exercise of his discretion, give leave where there was no serious issue to be tried."

28. If Mr. Nicholson is right in his submission there has been a radical change in practice since the House of Lords decided the question in 1994, but there is no hint of such a change of practice either in the Rules or indeed in the Notes to Civil Procedure which accompany the Rules. In my judgment there has been no such change in the legal requirements of an application to serve outside the jurisdiction.

29. It follows, in my judgment, that the evidence presented to the Master ought to have gone into the merits of the underlying claim in respect of which the court was being asked to give permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. Apart from the bare statement that in the view of the defendant there was a reasonable prospect of success in the underlying action, no evidence was adduced on the merits of the claim.

30. Mr. Nicholson points out, quite correctly, that in patent cases the Master's jurisdiction is a limited one. It is circumscribed by paragraph 8 of the practice direction. That is all true, but one of the matter over which the Master has jurisdiction, and which he exercised in the present case, is the giving of permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. There is no suggestion in the practice direction that there is some special test applicable only to patent cases.

31. In my judgment, therefore, the evidence before the Master was inadequate to demonstrate that there was a serious issue to be tried. That conclusion is all the more so because the particulars of claim are so general and unparticularised. Accordingly, in my judgment, on the material before him, the Master was wrong to permit service out of the jurisdiction.

32. Having reached the conclusion that he did, the Master made an order. The order did not specify a time for the filing of an acknowledgement of service. The specification of a time for acknowledgement of service is a mandatory requirement of the Rules. Mr. Nicholson submits that the acknowledgement of service is an unnecessary step to take in patent actions and is implicitly dispensed with by Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules extends the time for service of a defence to 42 days and does not say anything explicit about dispensing with the need to serve an acknowledgement of service.

33. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Nicholson points out, that because of the way that a claimant becomes entitled to enter a default judgment, he will not in fact be entitled to enter judgment in default of acknowledgement of service in a patent action until such time as the time for filing a defence has expired and the extension of the time for serving a defence contained in Part 63.6 overtakes the timescales available in ordinary actions. But I do not consider that this means that Part 63 has dispensed with the acknowledgement of service for all purposes. One of the important functions of an acknowledgement of service is that it is the mechanism by which a foreign defendant can challenge the court's jurisdiction. One would have thought, therefore, that that is a particular reason why, even in a patent case, on an application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction it is of importance that a date for the service of an acknowledgement of service be specified. Had that been the only question, then I do not think it would necessarily have invalidated the Master's order and could, no doubt, have been corrected.

34. Having come to the conclusion that the Master was wrong in permitting the particulars of claim to be served out of the jurisdiction, the next question is whether, in the light of the additional material which has been presented to the court, the order should none the less stand. In my judgment, the answer is no. There is some additional material. It hardly relates to Playtech at all, and the claim against Playtech at the moment is so vague and speculative that I do not consider that the particulars of claim ought to have been allowed to be served in their present form even with the new material.

35. So far as the claim against the Tote is concerned, paragraph 14 of the particulars of claim follows much the same form as paragraph 8 in repeating all the words in the Act without really analysing or identifying which particular types of infringement are relied upon. The particulars allege that the Tote Gaming Systems include computer systems specifically adapted by the installation and configuration of the Tote's software including the Playtech Software, and then the only act alleged is then pleaded in sub-paragraph (b) as follows: "Pending disclosure and requests for further information, the Claimant relies upon the acquisition and use of the Playtech Gaming Systems by the Tote and the supply of elements thereof to the Tote's end using gaming customers".

36. I do no at the moment understand what is meant by "the acquisition" of the Playtech Gaming Systems. Mr. Nicholson said that it might be importation, it might be making or it might be something else, but whatever it is it seems to me that it is incumbent on the claimant to identify what it is that he says the Tote has done which infringes the patent. The supply of elements thereof to the Tote's end user gaming customers appears to be an allegation that when a person logs on to the Tote website for the first time he receives a piece of executable code which, thereafter, lodges in his own computer thereby constituting a part of the system as claimed by the patent.

37. Again, however, it does not seem to me that paragraph 14.1 of the pleading against the Tote discloses an act of infringement which falls within all the integers of the claim in claim 1. The allegation in paragraph 14.2 relates to the supply and offer to supply of the Tote's Software. The "Tote's Software", although spelt with capital letters, is not defined. It goes on to allege a supply and offer to supply of constituent parts of the Tote's software, such part being means relating to an essential element of the invention. Again, it seems probable, although by no means clear, from this pleading that what is being relied on here is the executable code which is supplied to the end users of the overall system. Once again, it is alleged that the Tote is responsible for large numbers of subsidiaries but, again, no overt act by the Tote is pleaded nor any act that the Tote is alleged to have procured. Although a common design is pleaded, it is not identified. Nor are there pleaded any facts from which a common design could plausibly be inferred.

38. Paragraph 16 of the particulars of claim baldly states that there is a common design between both Playtech and the Tote but, again, beyond the bald assertion, which is a legal conclusion, there are no facts pleaded.

39. Part 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules gives the court a power to strike out. The power is exercisable if, amongst other things, the claimant has failed to comply with a rule or practice direction. It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that the claimant has failed to comply with the practice direction. It has not pleaded facts from which its claim is based. The gateway to the power has, then, therefore, definitely been opened. In some ways, the most difficult question is the question of what to do next. Mr. Nicholson's fallback position is that if I am against him on his pleading as it currently stands, as I am, then I should allow him the opportunity to amend. Mr. Speck, on the other hand, submits that the claimant has been given an opportunity to amend both in correspondence and before this hearing. In response to the original service of particulars of claim Linklaters, on behalf of the defendants, pointed out a number of deficiencies and gave information to the claimants about which were the relevant companies within the various groups who operated the website known as "totesports.com".

40. Herbert Smith, for the claimant, took the view that this information was inadequate and Mr. Nicholson has described possible scenarios which, in certain circumstances, might make the provision of that information inadequate, but those scenarios were all purely speculative and, in my judgment, the information provided by Linklaters to Herbert Smith should have enabled the claimants to reformulate their claim had they wished to do so.

41. Not without some hesitation, in view of the fact that striking out is a Draconian action to take, I think that enough is enough with this action. The claimant has been given the opportunity to amend, has refused to do so, and even now there is no draft amendment which properly pleads causes of action against the two defendants. I am not suggesting that somewhere inside the pleading there is not a cause of action struggling to get out but it is not visible at this stage.

42. In my judgment, the order permitting service outside the jurisdiction should be set aside and the claim against both Playtech and the Tote set out.

MR. SPECK: I am grateful, my Lord. We provided a schedule of costs in relation to the action as a whole.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Do I not have two?

MR. SPECK: Yes, you do have two, one for each defendant. That was just in case your Lordship went a different way. The costs incurred in the action have been split for each defendant so the two schedules come to the same amount of money. Obviously, this is a matter which is of some important to my clients, and also a matter where there was the possibility of an amendment being brought forward. Other work on other aspects of the case have to be started as well. So we have a schedule amount to 72,000- 73,000 in total.

First of all, I ask for my costs in the action. I anticipate that my friend cannot resist that. Secondly, I ask for an interim payment rather than a summary assessment because these costs relate to more than just one day's hearing. In the usual way, as I would do after a trial, you ask for an interim payment which your Lordship would be satisfied would be a fair reflection of what we are likely to recover on taxation. So your Lordship will have to look at the figures. As usual, your Lordship will have no more than a feel for the case, but we say that this is a reasonable amount of money to have spent on this action to have got this far. We say that these are the costs relating to the whole action and not just the application. So we invite your Lordship to order that we get our costs assessed and that you make an interim payment order for a fair proportion of these costs at this stage.

MR. NICHOLSON: My Lord, I have two aspects, one being costs and the second on the issue of permission to appeal. I will deal with the aspect of costs first.

My Lord, given your judgment, the position is that this claim form landed on my learned friend's desk some time in early October.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLSON: Linklaters, who now act for both of the defendants, were not previously instructed, so despite the fact that there is correspondence between the parties going back to March 2006, my instructions are that two earlier firms of solicitors were involved at that stage. So the position is that when this claim form and the particulars of claim, which my friend says is absolutely strikable, turned up on their desk, they went on to do 76,000 worth of work. We say that that is completely wrong. I am glad to hear that my learned friend said that this matter should go off for detailed assessment, as it will in due course. We say that if an interim payment were to be considered at all, it should be of a small figure. My client's costs in this hearing, bearing in mind that we were defendants and filed evidence that went to substance, whereas Mr. Karet's evidence just sets out a few of the ideas which they have in mind as to what they say is wrong, are set out, which your Lordship should also look at, comes to, including VAT, 17,500, which in my submission is the sort of figure that one should be talking about for a hearing of this type.

Because the bill which has been put in is so far from where we are in this action, by the time one has taken two-thirds of that bill to bring it down to what is reasonable and two-thirds again to allow for safe recovery, one is talking of such a tiny figure that any interim payment really should be left over to an application before the costs judge for an interim payment, which my learned friend can make at any time. I do not know whether your Lordship wants to deal with costs, and then I shall come on to deal with permission to appeal.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Do you want to say anything more about costs, Mr. Speck?

MR. SPECK: Only that my friend is comparing apples with bananas. It is quite remarkable that my learned friend prayed in aid how bad the particulars of claim were because, in effect, his submission was that this case was so bad that you ought not to have done any other work in the meantime. That is what that submission amounted to. We, as you have seen from the correspondence, anticipated that an amendment may have been forthcoming, so it is not at all unreasonable for us to have been getting on doing other things. That is why the bills are different because we were looking at different things.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Yes; and if they start again that may not be wasted work.

MR. SPECK: My Lord, the question is whether these costs were reasonably incurred in this action, and we say they were. Your Lordship should bear in mind what has been happening over time as to why we have incurred those costs. So you should not be looking at my friend's bill for the costs of this hearing. Nor should you be tempted with the judicial cop-out of saying, "Well, you can go and try somewhere else". That is always the case. Your Lordship is seized of the matter now. Your Lordship should look at the bills and take a view as to what we are likely to recover for the whole action and your Lordship should make an order for an interim payment of that amount now, in my submission.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: I will make an order requiring the claimant to pay the costs of both defendants. It does seem to me that the cost schedules are extraordinarily high bearing in mind that we have not even got to the stage of a defence. What has in fact been done is to reply to set aside service on the first defendant and an application to strike out on the part of the second defendant. Although, normally speaking, I tend to order interim payments at around about the 50% mark of what parties claim, I think in the present case that a far lower interim payment is warranted and I propose, therefore, to order that the claimant makes a payment of 10,000 to each of the two defendants by way of interim payment.

MR. NICHOLSON: My Lord, that brings me to the question of permission to appeal. My Lord, there are two aspects to the appeal. The first one deals with the level, particularly in a patent case, in which one is required to (a) particularise one's claim and (b) evidence the particularisation of that claim in front of the Master. Point (a), obviously, goes specifically to both the Tote and Playtech, whereas (b) is a particularisation in the service out.

A further matter which is the subject of a separate appeal is your Lordship's refusal to allow my clients the opportunity formally to amend.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: But you have not asked. There is no application to amend, not even a conditional one.

MR. NICHOLSON: My Lord, I am sorry but I have not made myself clear. You struck me out on the basis that I cannot have a period of time to come back with an application to amend.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLSON: I am saying that that is wrong in the circumstances. It was done on the basis of a letter, a correspondence, from the other side, purporting to give me the opportunity which has been rebuffed. Many of the points upon which your Lordship has found against me were not raised in correspondence. That was my clients' concern at the time -- we had matters coming across from the other side indicating a few things they had problems with was that if an amendment was tabled, the rest of the complaints would come out of the woodwork. My client was entitled to sit behind his case until the court ruled that it was not good enough, to set the service aside and to say that my particulars of claim required further work in respect of the Totalisator Board. I should have, as per the discretion which exists in the Rules under 3.4, the opportunity to go away and bring in a new particulars of claim and reapply for service out, unless your Lordship has reached the view that there is no possible question of patent infringement in this patent between the respective parties.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Apart from the court fee, what difference does it make?

MR. NICHOLSON: It makes a difference, at least on a practical basis, because my learned friend is now asking for all the costs in the action. Whether we come back in a few weeks' time and reissue, he will still be pursuing cost through a detailed assessment.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Yes.

MR. SPECK: My Lord, this is not an appeal which has any reasonable prospect of success. As to the first two points which my learned friend mentioned, the level of particularisation of the claim and evidence before the Master, are well established settled law and practice, which my friend has absolutely no prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal to take a different view on.

The last point, which is your refusal to allow him to go off and come back whenever he wants to, that amounts to a submission that the discretion that your Lordship has exercised is wrong. He did not identify any error of principle in the submission he has made. So even if your Lordship found it difficult, it does not mean that it has any reasonable prospect of being overturned on appeal because discretion is something which has to be attacked as being exercised on the basis of an error of principle. So your Lordship should not give permission at all. This is definitely a case where your Lordship should refuse and leave it to the Court of Appeal to say different if they think so.

MR. JUSTICE LEWISON: Yes. Thank you very much. I am going to refuse permission to appeal, Mr. Nicholson. You will have to persuade the Court of Appeal to take a different view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider entering a real brick-and-mortar casino, Wishmaker uses only the most popular games with a proven level of quality.

Shawnee oklahoma casino
In the bingo department, is there casinos in new orleans together with Tipico.	Online casino gambling experience of J W is pretty amazing, Ethereum.	Following relatively uneventful stints with Borussia Monchengladbach, their tendency is to be less suspicious and watchful.
This causes that bonuses without a deposit in online casinos is a rarer view, since the extension.	And after that, Turtle Creek Casino & Hotel is operated by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.	Apart from what types of bonuses are available for players joining Raging Bull, Merkur also offers some roulette variants.