DCT
2:13-cv-06158
Gametek LLC v. Cie Games Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gametek LLC (California)
- Defendant: Cie Games, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: COLLINS, EDMONDS, POGORZELSKI, SCHLATHER & TOWER, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:13-cv-06158, S.D. Cal., 12/10/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant's substantial business in the district, including through interactive websites and games accessible to and deriving revenue from persons in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online game, "Car Town," infringes a patent related to methods for transacting in-game advantages or items without interrupting gameplay.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of real-money microtransactions directly into a computer gaming environment, allowing users to purchase virtual goods or benefits in real-time.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the defendant was put on notice of the patent prior to the lawsuit's filing. An attachment to the complaint indicates that the plaintiff has filed similar patent infringement lawsuits against at least three other gaming companies, suggesting a broader licensing or enforcement campaign.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-20 | ’445 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-07-11 | ’445 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-12-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,076,445 - SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR OBTAINING ADVANTAGES AND TRANSACTING THE SAME IN A COMPUTER GAMING ENVIRONMENT, issued July 11, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for a more structured way for video game players to obtain "advantages," such as superior weapons or skills, earlier than the normal course of gameplay would allow. It notes that at the time, players were often "relegated to searching for free shortcuts and tricks" outside of the game, and no comprehensive systems existed to offer and transact such advantages within the gaming environment itself (’445 Patent, col. 2:20-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for creating, integrating, and selling "advantages" directly within a computer application like a video game. The system allows a user to be presented with an offer to purchase a game object, often triggered by in-game events, and to complete the transaction in real-time using various payment methods without having to exit the game. For example, the specification describes a pop-up warning a player that they are low on ammunition and offering to sell more ('445 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 8:25-38). The system then supplies the purchased item and allows the user to continue playing seamlessly (’445 Patent, col. 6:45-50).
- Technical Importance: The described technology provides a framework for monetizing gameplay through what are now commonly known as "microtransactions," formalizing the process of selling in-game items and creating a direct revenue stream from player engagement (’445 Patent, col. 2:40-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint generally alleges infringement of "the various claims" without specifying any particular claim number (Compl. ¶8). The allegations in the complaint most closely track the elements of independent claim 17.
- Independent Claim 17 recites a method of managing a game by:
- tracking the activity of a user during gaming action;
- displaying a plurality of game objects in the game environment;
- creating an account for storing the user's consideration (e.g., funds);
- permitting the user to select a game object with a set price;
- determining if the user has sufficient consideration in their account;
- presenting an offer to purchase the object, dependent on the user's tracked activity and their sufficiency of consideration;
- permitting the user to purchase the object at the set price "without interrupting the gaming action"; and
- supplying the purchased object to the user "without interrupting the gaming action" and incorporating it into the game.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the online game "Car Town" (Compl. ¶9, ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant "makes, uses, and hosts" the Car Town game (Compl. ¶10). The relevant functionality is described as a method of managing a game that includes displaying game objects for purchase, determining if a user has sufficient "consideration" to buy an object, presenting a purchase offer based on the user's "tracked activity," and allowing the user to purchase and receive the object "without interrupting the game" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the game's operation. It does allege that the defendant derives substantial revenue from its goods and services in the district (Compl. ¶4). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is articulated in narrative form in a single paragraph that largely mirrors the language of Claim 17 of the '445 Patent.
’445 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) tracking the activity of the at least one user in the course of the gaming action; | The complaint alleges Car Town presents an offer dependent upon "parameters comprising the tracked activity of the user." | ¶9 | col. 14:14-16 |
| b) displaying in the game environment a plurality of game objects; | The complaint alleges Car Town's method comprises "displaying a plurality of game objects." | ¶9 | col. 14:17-18 |
| c) creating an account for storing the consideration of the at least one user; | The complaint alleges the method involves "determining if the user has sufficient consideration," which implies the existence of an account. | ¶9 | col. 14:19-21 |
| d) permitting the at least one user to select one or more of the plurality of the displayed game objects, each game object having a set price; | The complaint alleges the method permits a user to purchase a game object, which implies the ability to first select it. | ¶9 | col. 14:22-25 |
| e) determining if the at least one user has sufficient consideration in its account... | The complaint alleges the method comprises "determining if the user has sufficient consideration to purchase a game object." | ¶9 | col. 14:26-29 |
| f) presenting to the at least one user an offer to purchase the game object dependent upon... the tracked activity... and the indication that the one user has sufficient consideration... | The complaint alleges the method comprises "presenting an offer to purchase the game object dependent upon parameters comprising the tracked activity of the user and the indication that the user has sufficient consideration." | ¶9 | col. 14:30-37 |
| g) permitting the at least one user to purchase the at least one game object... without interrupting the gaming action... | The complaint alleges the method comprises "permitting the user to purchase the game object without interrupting the game." | ¶9 | col. 14:38-41 |
| h) supplying at least one purchased game object to the at least one user without interrupting the gaming action... and incorporating the game object into the game. | The complaint alleges the method comprises "supplying the purchased game object to the user without interrupting the game, and incorporating the game object into the game." | ¶9 | col. 14:42-46 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual support. A central question will be what evidence shows that purchase offers in "Car Town" are technically "dependent upon the tracked activity of the user" in the manner required by the claim. For example, does the game offer a specific item because the user is in a certain location, has a low quantity of another item, or has performed a specific action?
- Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute is the meaning of "without interrupting the gaming action." The court will have to determine whether the transaction flow in "Car Town"—which may involve pop-up windows or temporary overlays—constitutes an "interruption" as the term is used in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "without interrupting the gaming action"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's purported novelty, distinguishing the claimed method from processes that require a user to leave the core game environment to make a purchase. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement for many modern in-game stores.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the goal is to allow a user to "continue in their computing game environment (i.e. continue playing the game) without the usual interruption of transaction processing" (’445 Patent, col. 6:47-50). A party could argue this means only that the user does not have to close the application or navigate to an external website.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that any user interface element that pauses or completely obscures the primary "gaming action"—such as a full-screen store interface or a modal dialog box—constitutes an "interruption," even if it occurs within the same application.
The Term: "game object"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine the types of in-game sales covered by the patent, from functional items to purely cosmetic ones.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 12 provides a very wide-ranging list of examples, including "at least one pizza, at least one cell phone, at least one ability to speed, and/or at least one preferred seat," alongside more traditional items like weapons and ammunition (’445 Patent, col. 13:18-23). This suggests the term is not limited to items with a functional gameplay impact.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title and background focus on obtaining "advantages" (’445 Patent, col. 2:3-5). A party might argue that to be a "game object" under the patent, the item must confer some tangible "advantage" in the game, potentially excluding things like decorative items that have no effect on performance.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that infringement occurs "jointly" (Compl. ¶9) but pleads no specific facts to support a claim of either induced or contributory infringement, such as by identifying specific instructions to users that would cause them to perform the claimed method.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Defendant "was put on notice of the '445 patent prior to the filing of this suit" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint further alleges that the infringement is an "objectively reckless act" (Compl. ¶12).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are highly general and track the patent's claim language. A key question is whether the plaintiff can substantiate these conclusory allegations with specific, technical evidence from the "Car Town" game that maps to each claim limitation.
- The case will likely turn on claim construction: The court's interpretation of the phrase "without interrupting the gaming action" will be critical. The question of whether a modern in-game store interface, which may pause gameplay to show a menu, falls within the scope of this limitation will be a primary point of contention.
- Underlying the dispute is a fundamental question of patent eligibility: While not yet raised, the patent, with a 2000 priority date, claims a business method for online transactions. A court will almost certainly have to address whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, if so, whether they contain a sufficient "inventive concept" to be patentable.