Federal Circuit Affirms $46m Default Judgment Against Bodog

1st Technology v. Rational Ent. and Bodog (Fed. Cir. 2008)

1st Technology won a default patent infringement judgment against the online gambling company Bodog and the Nevada district court awarded $46 million in damages plus interest. The patentee has been enforcing the judgment by attaching Bodog’s US assets – including its domain names and trademark registrations. Without opinion, the Federal Circuit has affirmed that judgment.

On appeal, Bodog argued that it was not properly served notice of the litigation and that the Nevada court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company. 1st argues that the service (to a Bodog’s Costa Rica office) was proper and that by not arriving in court Bodog had waived its personal jurisdiction argument. In addition, plaintiffs cite to a 2005 Forbes article noting how “in 2005, the Bodog entities handled $7.3 billion in online wagers, 95% of which came from the United States, with sales increasing every year. [Bodog’s founder] Mr. Ayre pays no United States income tax, and prides himself on the fact that he and the Bodog entities routinely evade United States law.”


7 thoughts on “Federal Circuit Affirms $46m Default Judgment Against Bodog

  1. 7

    So, what’re ya in fer?

    Accessory to gambling.

    So, let me get this straight, you didn’t actually gamble, or allow someone to gamble, but you were an accessory to it?

    Yes, funny how that works out.

  2. 6

    If gambling is illegal why are the courts enforcing anything that has to do with gambling? Seems to me that people have gone to jail for doing less than what 1st Technology is claiming the right to do – namely facilitate online gambling through their technology. Can everyone say accessory …

  3. 3

    You really need to provide a warning label on the third link stating that it leads to an online gambling site (blocked by the PTO firewall), or remove it. The examiners who read Patently-O are the most well-informed on current issues–please don’t be responsible for getting them all fired.

  4. 2

    I wonder what would have happened if he didn’t use a U.S. based registrar for the domain names? I guess that’s a lesson if you are going to run an internet business that needs to avoid U.S. jurisdiction.

  5. 1

    re: evading US law- Sounds like he’s doing a pretty good job of it. They’ve got a $46M judgment against him, and all they can collect with it is his domain names?

    Sounds like they’re confused about this whole “internet” thingy. I bet the assets they’ve attached so far won’t even cover legal fees.

Comments are closed.