DCT

1:01-cv-10610

Okor v. Acclaim Entertainmen

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
1975-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 4,126,851 Priority Date
1978-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 4,126,851 Issued
2001-04-12 Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market where television games were limited to a "single mode of operation" (e.g., only a hockey or tennis game), restricting their utility and long-term interest. At the other extreme, complex computer games were inaccessible to the average person (’851 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular, programmable system that connects to a standard television receiver. The system uses player control boxes, a computer, a modem for interfacing with external sources like other players or storage media, and a display module to generate video signals (’851 Patent, col. 2:27-54; Fig. 1). This architecture allows for a variety of different games to be played on the same hardware by changing the program, a key feature of modern game consoles (’851 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
  • Technical Importance: The patent's approach of separating the game logic (programmable software) from the display hardware (console) and enabling remote play was a significant conceptual step in the evolution from fixed-function game devices to versatile home entertainment platforms (’851 Patent, col. 1:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the ’851 Patent generally, which practitioners would interpret as an assertion of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • 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,
    • 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 for cyclically scanning said multiplexer,
    • and said display unit including a symbol generator, a modulator, and computer means for controlling the operation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services (Compl. ¶16). It broadly alleges that the defendants—which include major video game console manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, Sega), software publishers (Electronic Arts, Acclaim), and retailers (Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster)—infringed by "making, using and/or selling... the apparatus embodying the invention" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of any accused product. Based on the identities of the named defendants, the accused instrumentalities are implicitly the video game consoles, software, and related services that they manufactured, published, distributed, and sold in the United States (Compl. ¶¶2-13). The complaint alleges that the apparatus manufactured under the patent has been "extensively sold and introduced into public use" and has enjoyed "remarkable and outstanding commercial success" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis or a claim chart summary. The sole allegation of infringement is a general statement that the defendants "infringed said Letters 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. ¶16). No specific features of any product are mapped to the elements of any patent claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any infringement analysis is speculative. However, a dispute would likely raise fundamental technical and scope questions:
    • Scope Questions: Do modern, highly integrated video game consoles, which may not have physically distinct "multiplexers" or "modems" in the manner described in the 1970s-era patent, meet the structural limitations of Claim 1? The dispute may hinge on whether these terms can be construed broadly enough to cover the functionality of modern integrated circuits.
    • Technical Questions: A central question would be whether the architectural components of a modern game console (e.g., a CPU, GPU, RAM, network interface card) perform the functions of the claimed "computer means," "symbol generator means," "multiplexer," and "modem" in the manner required by the claim. For example, does a modern network interface function as the claimed "modem providing an interface between said memory means and said display unit"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "manual control units" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what types of player input devices fall within the patent's scope. The defendants' products use a wide variety of controllers, from simple joypads to complex controllers with analog sticks, triggers, and motion sensors.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the control units as being used to "manipulate a symbol appearing on a television screen 16 or to send information to a computer 18," 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 of the patent illustrates a specific embodiment of a control box 12 that is a keypad with discrete buttons and rotary dials (’851 Patent, Fig. 2). A defendant might argue this embodiment limits the scope of the term to similar keypad-style interfaces.

  • The Term: "modem" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires "a modem providing an interface between said memory means and said display unit." The construction of "modem" (modulator-demodulator) will be central to whether the claim reads on modern hardware, which typically uses digital network interface cards or Wi-Fi modules for connectivity rather than the analog telephone-line modems common when the patent was filed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the modem as an "interface between one display unit 26, the analog multiplexer 10 and the external world which might include external storage unit 28... or communication media, such as radio, TV, cable TV, etc." (’851 Patent, col. 2:40-46). This functional description of interfacing with an "external world" could support a broader reading.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent was filed in an era where "modem" had a more specific technical meaning tied to analog signal conversion for transmission over telephone lines. A defendant could argue that the term should be limited to its well-understood meaning at the time of the invention and does not cover purely digital communication interfaces.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendants' infringement was "willfully" committed (Compl. ¶16). However, it provides no factual basis to support this claim, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a refusal to cease infringing activity after being notified.

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

Given the preliminary stage of the case and the sparse nature of the complaint, the litigation will likely center on foundational issues before any detailed technical analysis can occur. The key open questions are:

  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary procedural question will be whether the complaint's generalized and conclusory allegations of infringement against a diverse group of defendants, without identifying any specific products, are sufficient to proceed.
  • Claim Scope and Evolving Technology: A core substantive issue will be one of technological translation: can the specific, discretely claimed components of a 1970s-era "programmable television game system"—such as a "multiplexer," "modem," and "manual control units"—be construed to cover the highly integrated, functionally different architectures of video game consoles developed decades later?
  • Functional Mapping: A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: assuming the claim terms are construed broadly, do the components of modern consoles actually function in the specific interconnected manner required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the system's operational design?