DCT
4:09-cv-00698
Stephenson v. MVP Network Online Gaming Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: John Stephenson (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: MVP Network Online Games, Inc. and MVP Network, Inc. (Nevada / Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bowers Law Firm; John J. Tanner
- Case Identification: 4:09-cv-00698, USDC ND/OK, 10/29/2009
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants conduct regular business and have sold or offered for sale the accused infringing products within the judicial district via their websites.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "GOLDEN FAIRWAY" online golf-themed game infringes a patent directed to a method for structuring online skill-based tournaments with distinct qualifying and playoff rounds.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns networked computer systems and software for managing multi-stage tournaments for games of skill, a format intended to allow players to gauge their abilities against a broad field of competitors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in October 2009. A subsequent Inter Partes Review proceeding, IPR2013-00289, was initiated against the patent-in-suit. The IPR concluded with a certificate issued on February 8, 2018, confirming that all claims of the patent (Claims 1-19) were cancelled. This post-filing cancellation of all asserted claims is a dispositive event for the infringement action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-21 | '237 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2001-01-16 | '237 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-10-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2018-02-08 | IPR Certificate Issued Confirming Cancellation of All Claims |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,174,237 - "Method for a Game of Skill Tournament"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for a gaming format that allows a player to "gauge the level of skill he possess as compared to other players, without traveling long distances and incurring the expenses of meeting at a central contest site" (’237 Patent, col. 1:30-34). It notes that prior art tournament structures had not successfully fulfilled this need (’237 Patent, col. 1:55-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part tournament structure conducted over an interactive computer system. First, a player participates in a "qualifying round" against a host computer to be classified into a "level of performance" (’237 Patent, col. 2:14-23). Second, players who achieve a predetermined "qualifying performance level" are eligible to participate in a "playoff round," where they play the game simultaneously against the host computer for a set period of time to determine rankings and awards (’237 Patent, col. 2:38-48). This two-stage structure is illustrated in the patent's flowchart, FIG. 1 (’237 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to create a more structured and rewarding online tournament experience that could better stratify players by skill and manage competitions among large numbers of remote participants (’237 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶13). The broadest claim is independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Playing a game of skill in a "qualifying round" between a single player and a host computer.
- Evaluating the results to classify the player within a "specific performance level."
- Evaluating the results to determine if the player qualifies for a "qualifying performance level."
- Distributing a "performance level award" based on the level obtained.
- Playing the game in a "playoff round" between the player and the host "simultaneously along with other players" who have also qualified.
- Evaluating the playoff results to determine a winner and rankings.
- Distributing "tournament awards" to participants.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "a variety of infringing products and/or services," including the online game "GOLDEN FAIRWAY" and services offered through the websites www.mvpnetwork.com and www.goldenfairway.com (Compl. ¶¶6, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes "GOLDEN FAIRWAY" as an "online game having a golf theme" (Compl. ¶11). The core infringing functionality alleged is that, according to the defendant's website, "a player must first obtain a qualification level prior to entry into a tournament" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the game or tournament operates, nor does it allege specific facts regarding its market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'237 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. playing a game of skill in a qualifying round between a single player and the host computer | Playing the "GOLDEN FAIRWAY" online golf game to "obtain a qualification level prior to entry into a tournament." | ¶¶11, 12 | col. 6:5-8 |
| b. evaluating the results of said qualifying round to determine if said player qualifies to be classified within a specific performance level... | The system determines if a player has obtained the "qualification level." | ¶12 | col. 6:9-13 |
| e. playing said game of skill in a playoff round between said player and the host computer simultaneously along with other players... | The player enters into a "tournament" after obtaining the required qualification level. | ¶12 | col. 6:20-24 |
| f. evaluating the results of said playoff round to determine a tournament winner and subsequent ranking of players | The complaint does not provide specific allegations for this element, but it is implied by the operation of a "tournament." | ¶12 | col. 6:25-27 |
| g. distributing tournament awards to tournament participants | The complaint does not provide specific allegations for this element, but it is implied by the operation of a "tournament." | ¶12 | col. 6:28-29 |
The flowchart in FIG. 1, attached to the complaint as part of Exhibit A, provides a visual representation of the two-stage tournament method, with a qualifying round (20) and a playoff round (40), that the complaint alleges is practiced by the accused "GOLDEN FAIRWAY" game (Compl., Ex. A, p. 5).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central infringement question is whether the accused game's requirement to "obtain a qualification level" (Compl. ¶12) constitutes the full, multi-step "qualifying round" and subsequent "playoff round" as claimed in the patent. The complaint does not allege facts detailing how the accused tournament functions beyond this initial qualification requirement.
- Technical Questions: What evidence shows that players in the accused "tournament" play "simultaneously along with other players," a specific limitation required by the playoff round element of claim 1? The complaint’s allegations are silent on the mechanics of how the accused tournament is conducted after a player qualifies.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "qualifying round"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's process of obtaining a "qualification level" (Compl. ¶12) can be mapped to the claimed "qualifying round." Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a discrete, timed event or merely achieving a status.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the object of the round as obtaining "a sufficient number of points" ('237 Patent, col. 3:60-62), which could suggest any process that results in a point-based qualification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the round be played "between a single player and the host computer" ('237 Patent, col. 6:7-8). The specification also provides an example where the round is open during a specific, pre-established time frame, suggesting a structured event rather than continuous, asynchronous play ('237 Patent, col. 4:34-38).
The Term: "simultaneously"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the nature of the "playoff round" and distinguishing it from other forms of tournament play. Infringement of this element depends on whether players in the accused tournament are required to compete at the exact same time.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term, which could leave room for an argument that it means within the same general tournament period.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the playoff round as beginning at a "preset time" and continuing for a "preset amount of time" ('237 Patent, col. 4:40-45), which strongly suggests synchronous play among all participants within a specific, shared time window.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not allege facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of Defendant's knowledge of the patent combined with intent to encourage infringement by others.
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not allege that infringement was willful or plead any facts that would support such a claim, for instance, by alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '237 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue is mootness: As a matter of law, can an infringement action proceed when all claims of the patent-in-suit were cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a post-filing Inter Partes Review? The cancellation of all claims (1-19) is a dispositive event that precludes any finding of infringement.
- A key evidentiary question, had the patent remained valid, would be one of factual sufficiency: Do the complaint's sparse allegations—relying only on the existence of a "qualification level" for a "tournament"—plausibly suggest that the accused product practices the specific, multi-step tournament method recited in the patent's claims, including elements such as simultaneous play and distinct awards for both the qualifying and playoff phases?