DCT

1:25-cv-00259

Activate Games Inc v. Square Entertainment LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00259, D. Colo., 01/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district, where it directs and controls operations, commits acts of infringement, and has a regular and established place of business.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Pixel™ Game System, an interactive floor gaming system, infringes two patents related to immersive amusement attractions.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves interactive amusement systems where participants engage with a grid of illuminable, pressure-sensitive floor panels that change status (e.g., safe, hazard, target) to create a live-action game.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Square Entertainment LLC (“Square”) had actual knowledge of the ’171 Patent as of November 19, 2024, following an intellectual property complaint filed by Plaintiff at an industry convention. The complaint further alleges that Square filed a declaratory judgment action regarding the ’171 Patent in the District of Arizona two days later. Plaintiff alleges it provided notice of the ’713 Patent to Square on or around January 24, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-01-20 Priority Date for ’171 and ’713 Patents
2022-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 11,511,171 Issues
2023-12-11 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding ’171 Patent to non-party developer Pixel Games GmbH
2024-05-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,986,713 Issues
2024-11-19 Plaintiff files IAAPA complaint; Defendant allegedly gains knowledge of ’171 Patent
2024-11-21 Defendant files Declaratory Judgment action on ’171 Patent in D. Ariz.
2025-01-23 Date Defendant allegedly gained knowledge of ’713 Patent
2025-01-24 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,511,171 - "Interactive Floor And Amusement Systems And Methods Employing Same," Issued November 29, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for alternatives to conventional amusement attractions like laser tag or large-scale parks, which can be "cost prohibitive, particularly in smaller markets" or in climates with "seasonal constraints." (Compl. ¶15; ’171 Patent, col. 1:23-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an immersive amusement system centered on an interactive floor. The floor is composed of an "array of panels" that can be individually illuminated and can sense a participant's presence. (Compl. ¶15; ’171 Patent, col. 1:43-56). A controller executes a gameplay sequence by designating panels with different statuses (e.g., "hazard panels to be avoided"), monitoring player interaction with the panels and other targets, and triggering a "penalty step" if a player steps on a hazard. (’171 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides a modular, reconfigurable, and physically engaging gaming experience suitable for indoor venues, addressing the cost and seasonal limitations of traditional attractions. (’171 Patent, col. 1:31-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶36). However, the independent claims provide insight into the patent's scope.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an amusement system comprising an interactive floor and a controller, with key elements including:
    • a sensing system to detect participant presence on any panel;
    • a controller configured to designate a subset of panels as "hazard panels";
    • the controller triggers illumination of the hazard panels and monitors for participant presence on them;
    • the controller triggers a "penalty step" in response to detected presence on a hazard panel; and
    • the controller monitors for actuation of "one or more target devices that are separate and distinct from the panels of the interactive floor system." (’171 Patent, col. 18:1-30).
  • Independent Claim 9 adds a requirement for the controller to designate "safe panels to which the participants are to travel." (’171 Patent, col. 19:9-49).
  • Independent Claim 14 adds a requirement for the controller to "generate at least one moving hazard by sequentially illuminating then de-illuminating an individual panel, or group of panels, in serial fashion across the array." (’171 Patent, col. 20:14-53).

U.S. Patent No. 11,986,713 - "Interactive Floor And Amusement Systems And Methods Employing Same," Issued May 21, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’713 Patent, a continuation of the ’171 Patent, addresses the same problem of creating cost-effective, immersive indoor amusement attractions. (Compl. ¶14; ’713 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally similar to that of the parent ’171 Patent, describing a system with an interactive, pressure-sensitive floor managed by a controller that runs a gameplay sequence. (’713 Patent, Abstract). The key distinctions are found in the claims, which define the invention's scope differently than the parent patent.
  • Technical Importance: As a continuation, this patent appears intended to protect variations of the core invention, potentially capturing different embodiments or competitor designs that emerged after the original filing.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶43).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an amusement system with an interactive floor and a controller, with key elements including:
    • a sensing system to detect participant presence;
    • a controller configured to designate a subset of panels as "hazard panels";
    • the controller triggers illumination of the hazard panels and monitors for participant presence on them; and
    • in response to detected presence, the controller is configured to "perform at least one of (a) execution of a penalty step in said gameplay sequence, and (b) termination said gameplay sequence." (’713 Patent, col. 18:1-24).
  • Notably, Independent Claim 1 of the ’713 patent does not require the "separate and distinct" target devices recited in Claim 1 of the ’171 Patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Pixel™ Game System ("Pixel Game System"). (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Pixel Game System as an "interactive gaming floor" and a "competing interactive floor system" developed by a "latecomer to the market," Pixel Games GmbH. (Compl. ¶6, ¶24). Defendant Square is alleged to be the exclusive U.S. licensee for the system. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a screenshot from a promotional video for the Pixel Game System, which depicts a person's feet on a floor of illuminated tiles, suggesting gameplay involves stepping on specific tiles. (Compl. ¶24, p. 7). The complaint also includes images of Defendant's marketing materials, such as an Instagram post advertising the system with the caption "Thousands of plays layered, the world loves Pixel Games!" (Compl. ¶30, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full claim-chart analysis. The infringement counts for the ’171 and ’713 patents reference Exhibits H and I, respectively, which are external claim charts not integrated into the pleading. (Compl. ¶36, ¶43). The complaint's narrative does not specify which product features are alleged to meet which claim limitations. However, based on the patent claims and the description of the accused product, the following points of contention may arise.

  • Identified Points of Contention (’171 Patent):
    • Scope Question: A primary issue for the ’171 Patent may be the limitation in Independent Claim 1 requiring "one or more target devices that are separate and distinct from the panels of the interactive floor system." (’171 Patent, col. 18:26-28). The complaint’s visual evidence, which shows a user interacting only with the floor, raises the question of whether the accused system includes any such off-floor targets. (Compl. ¶24, p. 7). The case may turn on whether Plaintiff asserts other claims that lack this limitation or presents evidence of such separate targets in the accused system.
  • Identified Points of Contention (’713 Patent):
    • Technical Question: As the ’713 Patent’s claims appear more aligned with a floor-only system, the dispute may focus on the technical operation of the accused product. Independent Claim 1 requires the controller to "perform at least one of (a) execution of a penalty step ... and (b) termination said gameplay sequence" in response to a player contacting a hazard panel. (’713 Patent, col. 18:20-24). A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system’s response (e.g., a sound, a light flash) qualifies as the claimed "penalty step" or "termination," as opposed to a mere feedback signal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "penalty step" (from ’171 Patent, Claim 1; ’713 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The execution of a "penalty step" is a required function of the controller in response to a player touching a hazard panel. The definition of this term is critical, as it determines whether the accused system’s responsive action constitutes infringement or is merely an unclaimed feedback feature.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "penalty step" without further definition, which a party may argue should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of a game. (’171 Patent, col. 18:25).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific examples of penalties, such as decrementing a "status meter" similar to a "life-bar or health-meter of a video game." (’171 Patent, col. 4:48-52). The flowchart in Figure 16 explicitly shows the step "Decrement Life Meter" following actuation of a red (hazard) cell. (’171 Patent, Fig. 16, step 320). A party may argue that these embodiments limit the term to actions with a quantifiable, negative impact on the game state.

  • Term: "hazard panels" (from ’171 Patent, Claim 1; ’713 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The designation of certain floor panels as "hazards" is a core concept of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will define what type of panel functionality in the accused product meets this central limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes them functionally as "hazard panels to be avoided by participants." (’171 Patent, col. 2:1-2). This broad, functional language could be argued to cover any panel that a player is discouraged from touching.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example: "red panels denote 'hazard panels' that the participants are specifically to avoid stepping on as they traverse the interactive floor." (’171 Patent, col. 11:17-19). This language could support an interpretation limiting the term to panels that must be avoided via foot-based traversal, potentially excluding other forms of interaction or avoidance.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Square encourages customers to purchase and use the infringing system through demonstrations at conventions and promotional materials, including social media posts. (Compl. ¶30, ¶33, ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes specific allegations to support willfulness. For the ’171 Patent, it alleges Square had actual knowledge as of at least November 19, 2024, from an IP complaint filed at the IAAPA convention. (Compl. ¶29, ¶38). For the ’713 Patent, it alleges Square had actual knowledge as of at least January 23, 2025, preceding the filing of the lawsuit. (Compl. ¶32, ¶45).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. Claim Scope and Infringement Strategy (’171 Patent): A core issue will be a potential mismatch in claim scope. Can Plaintiff prove that the accused Pixel Game System, which appears in complaint visuals to be a floor-only game, infringes claims of the ’171 Patent that explicitly require "target devices that are separate and distinct from the panels"? The resolution may depend on which specific claims Plaintiff ultimately asserts and what evidence emerges regarding the accused system's full configuration.

  2. Functional Operation and Equivalence (’713 Patent): With respect to the ’713 Patent, which appears better tailored to the accused product, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation. Does the accused system's response to a player touching a "hazard" tile perform the specific function of a "penalty step," as the term is construed from the patent, or does its functionality differ in a way that is material to the claims?

  3. Willfulness and Timing: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice for both patents, a central question for damages will be willful infringement. The court will examine the timeline of notice, including the IAAPA complaint and subsequent communications, to determine whether Defendant's alleged infringement after these dates was "willful and deliberate," which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages.