DCT

1:00-cv-11504

Okor v. Atari Games Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:00-cv-11504, D. Mass., 07/28/2000
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges venue is proper for each defendant on the basis that they have a "regular and established place of business" within various U.S. jurisdictions and have "committed acts of infringement complained of herein" in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, a group of prominent video game companies, infringe a patent related to a programmable television game system.
  • Technical Context: The patent addresses early home and arcade video game systems, describing a modular and programmable architecture for displaying and controlling interactive symbols on a standard television screen.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1975-11-03 ’851 Patent Priority Date
1978-11-21 ’851 Patent Issue Date
2000-07-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,126,851 - "Programmable Television Game System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 4,126,851, “Programmable Television Game System,” issued November 21, 1978.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the state of television games in the mid-1970s as being limited and of "restricted capability" (’851 Patent, col. 1:28-31). Existing systems were generally single-mode, meaning one console could only play one type of game (e.g., a hockey game or a tennis game), which limited their utility and consumer interest (’851 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular and "programmable" television game system that allows a variety of different games to be played on the same unit (’851 Patent, col. 1:13-16). The system architecture includes multiple player control boxes, light pens for positional input, a modem to interface with external sources like storage media or other players, and a display module that generates video information for a standard television receiver (’851 Patent, col. 1:59-col. 2:6). This design allows for interchangeable programs and adjustable complexity, solving the single-mode limitation of prior art systems (’851 Patent, col. 1:45-49; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The concept of a programmable, modular system using interchangeable software represented a significant evolution from dedicated, single-game hardware, foreshadowing the cartridge-based home console model that would come to dominate the industry.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. The analysis below focuses on the sole independent claim, Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • a multiplexer
    • a plurality of manual control units operatively connected to said multiplexer for operation by individual players
    • a plurality of light pens operatively connected to said multiplexer for operation by individual players
    • a display unit adapted to be located remotely from and responsive to a control unit
    • changeable memory means providing program instruction
    • a modem providing an interface between said memory means and said display unit
    • timing control means
    • said display unit including a symbol generator, modulator, and computer means
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services (Compl. ¶¶1-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges in general terms that the defendants infringed the ’851 Patent by "making, using and/or selling or causing to be made and used and/or sold by others, the apparatus embodying the invention or improvements described and claimed in said patent" (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that such apparatus has been "extensively sold and introduced into public use" and enjoyed "remarkable and outstanding commercial success" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the functionality of any accused apparatus.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or any specific factual allegations mapping the elements of any asserted claim to an accused product. It makes only a conclusory statement that the defendants have infringed the ’851 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Due to the lack of specific allegations, a substantive infringement analysis or claim chart summary cannot be constructed based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential claim construction disputes. However, based on the language of Claim 1 of the ’851 Patent, practitioners may focus on the following terms.

  • The Term: "manual control units"

    • Context and Importance: This term's scope is central to defining what types of player input devices are covered by the claim. The definition will determine whether the claim reads on the diverse range of controllers used in video games, from simple paddles to multi-button joysticks.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the control units as being used to "manipulate a symbol" or "send information to a computer," a general functional description that could encompass many types of input devices (’851 Patent, col. 2:33-36).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 depicts a specific embodiment of a "player control box" with a keypad and several rotating dials, which could be argued to limit the term to controllers with similar physical characteristics (’851 Patent, Fig. 2).

  • The Term: "display unit adapted to be located remotely from and responsive to a control unit"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the architectural relationship between the core processing/control components and the video generation hardware. Its interpretation could be critical in determining whether the claim covers integrated console systems versus more distributed or networked architectures.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility in location, stating that "the display module 26 could be located at the cable TV head end and the players could 'tune-in' to their game," implying significant physical separation is contemplated (’851 Patent, col. 2:54-58).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described shows a local system where player controls connect through a multiplexer to a "display module," which in turn connects to a television (’851 Patent, Fig. 1; Abstract). A defendant might argue that "remotely" should be construed in this more limited context of separate but nearby modules, rather than wide-area network separation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendants acted "unlawfully and willfully" (Compl. ¶15). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages up to three times the amount assessed (Compl. p. 3).

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

Given the complaint’s lack of factual detail, the initial phase of this case will likely focus on fundamental pleading and scope issues before any technical infringement analysis can occur.

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s conclusory allegation of infringement, without identifying any specific accused products or explaining how they meet the claim limitations, satisfy the federal pleading standards?
  • A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: what is the proper construction of foundational claim terms such as "manual control units" and "changeable memory means" in the context of video game technology that evolved rapidly after the patent's 1975 priority date?
  • A third key question will be one of applicability: can the specific architecture claimed in the ’851 Patent—requiring, among other things, a multiplexer, light pens, and a modem interfacing between memory and a display unit—be mapped onto the diverse hardware architectures of the numerous defendants’ commercial video game systems from the relevant time period?