Infernal Technology LLC v. Take Two Intera

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Infernal Technology, LLC and Terminal Reality, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-09350, S.D.N.Y., 01/27/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant’s corporate headquarters is located in the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s video games and underlying game engines infringe two patents related to methods for rendering lighting and shadows in computer graphics simulations.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on "deferred rendering," a technique in 3D computer graphics that separates the rendering of scene geometry from lighting calculations to efficiently handle multiple light sources and create more realistic shadows.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit previously survived inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Electronic Arts Inc. (EA). In 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued Final Written Decisions confirming the patentability of all challenged claims. Following the PTAB decisions, EA settled the parallel infringement claims and entered into a license agreement with Plaintiffs.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-03-12	’822 Patent Priority Date
2001-12-06	’488 Patent Priority Date
2002-03-26	’822 Patent Issue Date
2006-06-13	’488 Patent Issue Date
2013-10-01	Accused Product Launch (Grand Theft Auto Online)
2016-04-21	IPR Petitions Filed by Electronic Arts
2016-10-25	PTAB Institutes IPR Proceedings
2017-10-19	PTAB Final Written Decision on ’822 and ’488 Patents
2017-10-23	PTAB Final Written Decision on ’822 and ’488 Patents
2019-02-27	Plaintiffs' Counsel Sends Notice Letter to Defendant
2020-01-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,362,822 - "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the computational challenge of rendering realistic shadows in real-time 3D graphics, particularly with multiple light sources. Prior methods were often too "compute intensive," leading to simplifications, or could produce unrealistic effects like "additive darkening," where a surface in shadow from two different light sources becomes unnaturally dark (’822 Patent, col. 2:36-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where lighting is calculated in a separate series of steps after the main scene geometry is rendered. The process first generates color and depth data from the observer's viewpoint. Then, for each light source, it determines which surfaces are illuminated from that source's perspective by comparing depth information. The color contributions from each light source on illuminated surfaces are progressively added to a "light accumulation buffer." Finally, this completed buffer is combined with the original observer view to create the final, properly lit and shadowed image (’822 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-40). This decoupling of lighting from geometry rendering is a form of deferred rendering.
• Technical Importance: This approach made it more computationally feasible to simulate numerous and complex light sources in real-time applications like video games, a critical step toward greater visual realism (’822 Patent, col. 2:61-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of the method claims of the ’822 Patent, focusing on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41, ¶¶53-58).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’822 Patent recites the essential elements of:
  • Providing observer data (e.g., color and depth) for a simulated scene.
  • Providing lighting data (e.g., color and depth) from a plurality of light sources.
  • For each light source, comparing observer and lighting data to determine if a point is illuminated.
  • Storing the light image data for an illuminated point in a "light accumulation buffer."
  • Combining the light accumulation buffer with the observer data.
  • Displaying the resulting image data.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 - "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the ’822 Patent, the ’488 Patent addresses the same technical challenges of efficiently rendering realistic lighting and shadows from multiple light sources in real-time computer graphics (’488 Patent, col. 2:40-62).
• The Patented Solution: The ’488 Patent claims a similar deferred rendering method. The process involves generating observer and light-source-specific data, comparing depth information to identify shadowed versus illuminated points, accumulating the lighting contributions in a buffer, and then combining the accumulated light with the observer’s view to produce the final image (’488 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:24-39). The core technical approach is consistent with that of the parent ’822 Patent.
• Technical Importance: The patent family represents a technique for managing the computational load of dynamic lighting, which was becoming increasingly important for creating immersive and visually complex interactive entertainment (’488 Patent, col. 2:63-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of the method claims of the ’488 Patent, focusing on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶63, ¶¶76-81).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’488 Patent recites the essential elements of:
  • Providing observer data for a simulated scene.
  • Providing lighting data from a plurality of light sources.
  • For each light source, comparing observer and lighting data to determine if a point is illuminated.
  • Storing the light image data for an illuminated point in a "light accumulation buffer."
  • Combining the light accumulation buffer with the observer data.
  • Outputting the resulting image data. A subtle distinction from the ’822 Patent’s claim to "displaying... to a computer screen."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are numerous video games published by Take-Two, including titles from the Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Mafia, NBA 2K, and WWE 2K series, as well as the underlying "Accused Game Engines" such as the Rockstar Advance Game Engine ("RAGE"), Bioshock Engine, and Illusion Engine (Compl. ¶¶37-39).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Game Engines and the Accused Games that use them are capable of performing "deferred rendering, deferred shading, deferred lighting, physically based shading, and/or physically based rendering" (Compl. ¶37). This functionality is described as a process where "the application of light to the scene is 'deferred' until after the surface properties for the objects in the scene have been rendered," which maps to the patented methods (Compl. ¶51). The complaint highlights the immense commercial success of the accused products, identifying Grand Theft Auto V as the "most financially successful media title of all time" with over $6 billion in revenue (Compl. ¶23).
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Take-Two directly infringes by performing the patented methods on its servers when users play the Accused Games online (e.g., via "Rockstar Cloud Servers") and during internal development, testing, and demonstration (Compl. ¶¶44, 50).

U.S. Patent No. 6,362,822 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene	The Accused Games provide observer data of the game's 3D scene.	¶54	col. 3:21-22
providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources... said lighting data including light image data	The Accused Games provide lighting data for multiple light sources within the scene.	¶55	col. 3:23-26
for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing... observer data with... lighting data to determine if a modeled point... is illuminated... and stores... light image data... in a light accumulation buffer	For each light source, the Accused Games compare data to determine if points are illuminated and store the associated light image data in a buffer.	¶56	col. 3:27-35
combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data	The Accused Games combine the stored light data with the observer's view of the scene.	¶57	col. 3:35-37
displaying the resulting image data to a computer screen	The Accused Games display the final, lit image on the user's screen.	¶58	col. 3:38-39

U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene	The Accused Games provide observer data of the game's 3D scene.	¶77	col. 4:25-26
providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources... said lighting data including light image data	The Accused Games provide lighting data for multiple light sources within the scene.	¶78	col. 4:27-30
for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing... observer data with... lighting data to determine if a modeled point... is illuminated... and storing... light image data... in a light accumulation buffer	For each light source, the Accused Games compare data to determine if points are illuminated and store the associated light image data in a buffer.	¶79	col. 4:31-39
combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data	The Accused Games combine the stored light data with the observer's view of the scene.	¶80	col. 4:39-41
outputting the resulting image data	The Accused Games output the final rendered image data for display.	¶81	col. 4:41-42

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central legal question may be whether Take-Two can be held liable for direct infringement for games played online. The complaint alleges Take-Two "controls the steps of the entire patented deferred rendering process" even when the end-user activates the game (Compl. ¶¶46-47). This raises the question of whether Take-Two directs or controls every step of the claimed method as required by law to avoid a finding of divided infringement.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail the specific architecture of the accused game engines. This raises the evidentiary question of whether the data structures and algorithms in modern, highly complex engines like RAGE function in a manner that maps directly onto the patent’s claimed "light accumulation buffer" and "combining" steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "light accumulation buffer"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core data structure where lighting information is aggregated before being applied to the final scene. The definition of this buffer will be critical, as infringement may depend on whether the accused game engines utilize a functionally equivalent structure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the buffer's function as storing "accumulated light falling on a pixel (or groups of pixels) from light sources" (’822 Patent, col. 7:40-44). This functional language may support a construction covering various modern data structures used in graphics buffers (e.g., G-buffers) that store lighting components.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The exemplary pseudocode in the specification shows an iterative, additive process: ACCUM (SPx, SPy)+=LIGHT IMAGE (LPx, LPy) (’822 Patent, col. 9:43-45). A defendant may argue this limits the term to a buffer that is populated through a specific pixel-by-pixel summation process, potentially distinguishing it from modern shader-based techniques.

• The Term: "combining"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the final step where the calculated lighting is applied to the observer's view of the scene. Whether the accused method of applying light constitutes "combining" will be a key infringement question.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, which may support a broad construction covering any mathematical or logical operation that integrates the lighting data with the scene's base color data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s pseudocode discloses a specific multiplication operation: CAMERA IMAGE (SPx, SPy)*=ACCUM (SPx, SPy) (’822 Patent, col. 9:47-48). A defendant could argue that this disclosure limits the term "combining" to a multiplicative blending operation, as opposed to other methods used in modern rendering pipelines.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it lays a potential factual foundation by alleging that Take-Two "controlled and directed the infringing activities" of third-party developers through contracts and provided them with directions on how to develop and test the Accused Games (Compl. ¶¶34-35).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that on February 27, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to the CEO of Take-Two's subsidiary Rockstar, identifying the patents, accusing games like Grand Theft Auto 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 of infringement, and explaining that the infringement was based on the use of a "‘deferred-rendering’ pipeline" (Compl. ¶84). The complaint notes that Rockstar did not respond to the letter (Compl. ¶84).

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

• A core issue will be one of divided infringement and control: can Plaintiffs establish that Take-Two performs or controls every step of the claimed method when a game is streamed or played online, particularly when an end-user's action initiates the process? The outcome may depend on the degree of control Take-Two exercises over its "Rockstar Cloud Servers" and the execution of the game code.
• A second key issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the process described in a 1999-priority patent, including terms like "light accumulation buffer" and "combining," be construed to cover the sophisticated, shader-based deferred rendering pipelines used in modern game engines? The dispute may focus on whether the accused technology is a fundamentally different process or merely an improvement upon the claimed invention.
• A third pivotal factor will be the procedural history: how will the patents' survival of an inter partes review, which confirmed their validity over prior art asserted by a major industry competitor, affect the defendant’s invalidity defenses and the overall litigation and settlement dynamics? This history presents a notable challenge for any attempt to invalidate the patents on similar grounds.