DCT

1:16-cv-00455

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take Two Interactive Software Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00455, D. Del., 06/17/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants being corporations organized under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ multiplayer online video games, including the "Grand Theft Auto" and "NBA 2K" series, infringe six patents related to creating and managing broadcast channels for data dissemination in peer-to-peer networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating scalable and reliable peer-to-peer networks for real-time, multi-user applications, a foundational technology for the online gaming industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this lawsuit follows a prior case (1:15-cv-00311, D. Del.) filed on April 13, 2015, which asserted the same patents against the same defendants. That case was dismissed on June 3, 2016, due to a finding that the plaintiff lacked prudential standing. The current complaint alleges this standing issue has since been resolved through a new agreement with the original patent assignor, The Boeing Company. The filing of the prior lawsuit is cited as the basis for pre-suit knowledge in the current complaint's willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-31 Priority Date for all six patents-in-suit
2004-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 Issued
2004-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 Issued
2004-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 Issued
2004-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 Issued
2005-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 Issued
2005-07-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 Issued
2015-04-13 Plaintiff filed prior infringement complaint against Defendants
2015-11-02 Plaintiff served an Identification of Accused Products and Patents
2016-03-02 Plaintiff served claim charts in prior litigation
2016-06-03 Prior complaint dismissed for lack of prudential standing
2016-06-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 - "DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT"

  • Issued: March 2, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of existing network communication technologies for applications requiring simultaneous information sharing among many distributed users, such as online games. It notes that point-to-point connections become unmanageably complex at scale, client-server models create performance bottlenecks and single points of failure, and multicasting protocols place an unacceptable overhead on the underlying network (’344 Patent, col. 1:29-41; col. 2:1-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating a "logical broadcast channel" that overlays a standard point-to-point network like the Internet. Instead of a central server or direct connections to all users, each computer ("participant") in the network connects to a small, fixed number of other participants called "neighbors." To broadcast a message, a participant sends it only to its neighbors, which then propagate the message to their other neighbors. This method efficiently disseminates information to all participants in a decentralized and resilient manner (’344 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: This peer-to-peer broadcast technique provides a scalable and reliable architecture for real-time data distribution, which was a critical enabling technology for the large-scale multiplayer online games that were emerging at the time (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but references claim charts (not attached) that describe infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶71-72). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A computer network for providing a game environment for a plurality of participants.
    • Each participant has connections to at least three neighbor participants.
    • An originating participant sends data to other participants by sending it through its connections to its neighbors.
    • Each participant sends data it receives from a neighbor to its other neighbor participants.
    • The network is "m-regular," where m is the exact number of neighbors for each participant.
    • The number of participants is at least two greater than m, resulting in a non-complete graph.

U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 - "INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE"

  • Issued: March 30, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’344 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a reliable and scalable communications network for simultaneous information sharing among a large number of widely distributed processes, a problem not adequately solved by existing point-to-point, client-server, or multicasting technologies (’966 Patent, col. 1:30-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an "information delivery service" built on the same technical foundation as the ’344 patent: a logical broadcast channel overlaying a point-to-point network. Participants connect to a fixed number of neighbors and propagate information by sending data received from one neighbor to all their other neighbors. This creates a resilient peer-to-peer network for broadcasting information (’966 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-22).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a generalized framework for a decentralized, peer-to-peer information delivery service applicable to various domains beyond gaming, such as financial data feeds or collaborative software, by creating a reliable broadcast mechanism on top of standard network infrastructure (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶81-82). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A computer network for providing an information delivery service for a plurality of participants.
    • Each participant has connections to at least three neighbor participants.
    • An originating participant sends data by sending it through its connections to its neighbors.
    • Each participant sends data it receives from a neighbor to its other neighbors.
    • The network is "m-regular," where m is the exact number of neighbors for each participant, and the network is an incomplete graph.

U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 - "LEAVING A BROADCAST CHANNEL"

  • Issued: May 4, 2004
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the process for a participant to disconnect from the described broadcast channel network. The invention claims a method where the departing participant sends messages to a second computer (a neighbor), enabling that second computer to connect to a third computer (another neighbor) to maintain the integrity and connectivity of the network after the departure (Compl. ¶25).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted (Compl. ¶93-94).
  • Accused Features: The accused games allegedly use the claimed technology to allow players to leave a gaming session without negatively affecting the gameplay experience of the remaining players (Compl. ¶53, ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 - "BROADCASTING NETWORK"

  • Issued: December 7, 2004
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the system for broadcasting data across the network. The claimed system involves participants sending data received from one neighbor participant to their other neighbor participants, which is alleged to create reliability in the network (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted (Compl. ¶103-104).
  • Accused Features: The multiplayer modes of the accused games are alleged to use this broadcasting method to communicate and interact by sending data between neighboring players, thereby creating reliability (Compl. ¶103-104).

U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 - "JOINING A BROADCAST CHANNEL"

  • Issued: June 21, 2005
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for adding a new participant to an existing broadcast channel network without placing high overhead on the system. The method involves identifying a pair of existing participants that are connected, disconnecting that pair from each other, and then connecting the new seeking participant to each member of the identified pair (Compl. ¶31).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted (Compl. ¶116-117).
  • Accused Features: The accused games are alleged to use this method to allow new players to join ongoing multiplayer sessions (Compl. ¶116-117).

U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 - "CONTACTING A BROADCAST CHANNEL"

  • Issued: July 19, 2005
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the initial step of finding and connecting to the network. The claimed method involves a "seeking computer" using a selected "call-in port" to request that a "portal computer" (an existing member of the network) coordinate the connection of the seeking computer to the broadcast channel (Compl. ¶34).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted (Compl. ¶128-129).
  • Accused Features: The matchmaking and session-joining functionalities of the accused games are alleged to infringe by allowing players to interact and communicate with each other through a computer network via a portal computer (Compl. ¶128-129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the multiplayer online games in the "Grand Theft Auto" series, specifically "Grand Theft Auto V" and "Grand Theft Auto Online" ("GTA"), and the "NBA 2K" series, including "NBA 2K15" and "NBA 2K16" ("NBA 2K") (Compl. ¶35, ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products provide online multiplayer gaming environments where up to 30 individual players can interact in various modes, such as "Open World," "Jobs," "Crews," "Team Death Match," and "Heists" for GTA, and "Online Leagues," "MyPARK," and "Crew" for NBA 2K (Compl. ¶35, ¶38, ¶42, ¶55, ¶57, ¶62).
  • The complaint alleges that these products utilize peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technologies to allow players' systems to interact directly with each other inside the gaming environment (Compl. ¶52, ¶63). The complaint presents a screenshot of a 2012 tweet from Defendant Rockstar's official support account stating, "The connections will be P2P" in response to a user query (Compl. p. 17, ¶53).
  • A key alleged functionality is that players can leave a gaming session "without negatively affecting the gameplay experience of other players" (Compl. ¶53, ¶64). A screenshot from a game session shows a notification that a player has left the party, which is presented as evidence of this functionality (Compl. p. 17, ¶53).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided with the filing. Therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • '344 and '966 Patents Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the multiplayer modes of the GTA and NBA 2K products create a computer network that functions as the claimed "game environment" or "information delivery service" (Compl. ¶71, ¶81). It is alleged that the players' computers or consoles act as the "participants" in the network. The core allegation is that these games use a peer-to-peer architecture where game data (e.g., player actions, locations) is sent between players on a point-to-point basis, which functions as the claimed broadcast technique where data received from one neighbor is sent to other neighbors (Compl. ¶71-72, ¶81-82).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "m-regular," which requires every participant to have the exact same number of connections, can be read on the dynamic and potentially asymmetric network topologies common in online gaming, where players may have different numbers of connections at any given time.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused games use a peer-to-peer architecture where participants relay data received from one neighbor to other neighbors. What evidence does the complaint provide that this specific relay mechanism is actually implemented? The provided tweet confirms a P2P connection model but does not detail the data propagation method between multiple peers (Compl. p. 17, ¶53).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "m-regular"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’344 and ’966 patents and defines a specific network topology where every node (participant) has exactly 'm' connections. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused gaming networks, which are subject to constant change as players join and leave, can be considered "m-regular." Practitioners may focus on this term because it imparts a precise structural limitation that may not be met by the accused systems.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discusses the network in both "steady state" and non-steady-state conditions, acknowledging that computers may connect and disconnect. A party could argue that "m-regular" should be construed as the target state of the network, and that temporary deviations during gameplay do not escape the claim's scope (’344 Patent, col. 7:4-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims state the network is "m-regular." The specification consistently describes the invention as a "4-regular" and "4-connected" graph, and details the complex processes of "edge pinning" specifically to maintain this regular structure when participants join (’344 Patent, col. 4:38-48; col. 5:56-61). This suggests the term imposes a strict, continuous structural requirement.

  • The Term: "participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core data propagation mechanism of the claimed invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused P2P networks actually perform this specific receive-and-forward relay function among peers, or if they use a different data distribution model (e.g., a hybrid model where a server coordinates data exchange, or a client-multicast model).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language broadly covers any P2P system where information from one peer becomes available to others, regardless of the precise relay steps. The patent's overall goal is to "effect the broadcasting of the message to each computer" (’344 Patent, col. 4:35-37).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific sequence of actions: receiving from one neighbor and sending to others. The specification details this process: "Each computer that receives the message then sends the message to its three other neighbors" (’344 Patent, col. 4:32-34). This suggests a specific, active re-transmission step is required at each node.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all six asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement dating back to at least April 13, 2015, the filing date of a prior lawsuit asserting the same patents. The complaint further notes that Plaintiff served Defendants with an "Identification of Accused Products and Patents" on November 2, 2015, and with detailed claim charts on March 2, 2016, all prior to the filing of the current complaint (Compl. ¶75, ¶85, ¶97, ¶107, ¶120, ¶132).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: can the potentially fluid and asymmetrical peer-to-peer networks in the accused online games be proven to meet the specific topological requirement of being "m-regular," as strictly defined in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in network architecture?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what is the actual mechanism of data propagation between players in the accused games? Does each player’s system actively perform the claimed step of receiving data from one peer and re-transmitting it to its other peers, or does the system rely on a different broadcasting or data-sharing model that falls outside the claim scope?