A Wisconsin company specializing in electronic games has accused another business and its owners of using confidential product information to file patent applications without permission, raising concerns about the protection of proprietary technology in the gaming industry. The complaint was filed by Big Daddy Games LLC on April 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against USA Pulltabs LLC as well as Anna Schmitz and Andrew Schmitz.
According to the court filing, Big Daddy Games LLC (BDG) alleges that it shared sensitive technical details with USA Pulltabs LLC (USAPT) under a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (MNDA) signed on August 1, 2023. BDG describes itself as a privately-owned Wisconsin company focused on manufacturing proprietary electronic games and related equipment. The complaint states that BDG’s products include software and hardware for pull-tab game ticket systems, which are used in bars, restaurants, casinos, and other entertainment venues.
The dispute centers around BDG’s development of a Ticket Redemption Terminal (TRT), described as an invention that uses a scanner to automatically redeem winning pull-tabs via QR code or barcode technology. BDG asserts that after entering into the MNDA with USAPT—whose owners are identified as Anna Schmitz and Andrew Schmitz—it disclosed detailed information about this invention to USAPT for potential collaboration. The agreement specifically required both parties to keep such information confidential and only use it for evaluating a possible partnership.
BDG claims that after receiving these disclosures, USAPT and its owners used the confidential information not only to develop similar products but also to file multiple patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The complaint lists at least one provisional utility patent application (filed February 16, 2024), three non-provisional utility patent applications—including application numbers 18/605,766; 18/744,631; and 19/043,244—and one design application. These filings allegedly incorporated aspects of BDG’s TRT invention without authorization.
The legal filing outlines how Anna Schmitz signed the MNDA on behalf of USAPT before any proprietary information was exchanged. It further alleges that both Anna Schmitz and Andrew Schmitz submitted declarations to the USPTO claiming inventorship over inventions derived from BDG’s confidential disclosures. According to BDG’s attorneys: “Anna Schmitz and Andrew Schmitz are not the original inventors or joint inventors of the substance” contained in these patent applications.
BDG argues that by submitting these patent applications—some of which have since been published by the USPTO—the defendants made BDG’s confidential information public without consent. This action is alleged to constitute trade secret misappropriation under both federal law (18 U.S.C. §1836) and Wisconsin state law (Wisconsin Statute §134.90), as well as breach of contract under the terms set forth in their MNDA.
The complaint also includes counts for fraud on the USPTO based on alleged false declarations regarding inventorship and assignment rights; unfair competition if any disclosed information is found not to be legally classified as a trade secret; and unjust enrichment should any part of their agreement be deemed invalid or unenforceable.
In its prayer for relief, BDG requests immediate preliminary injunctions prohibiting all defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information in any form or storing it in any database without written consent. It asks the court to declare defendants’ actions as trade secret misappropriation under federal and state law; material breaches of contract; fraud on the USPTO; unfair competition; unjust enrichment; and seeks monetary damages including lost profits along with attorney fees. The company also demands a jury trial for all triable issues.
Attorneys Garet K. Galster, Melissa A. Spindler, and Jordan A. Liff from Smith Keane LLP represent Big Daddy Games LLC in this matter under case number 26-cv-683.
Source: 126cv00683_Big_Daddy_Games_LLC_v_USA_Pulltabs_LLC_Complaint_Eastern_District_Wisconsin.pdf
