DCT
2:19-cv-00071
GREE Inc v. Supercell Oy
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GREE Inc (Japan)
- Defendant: Supercell Oy (Finland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00071, E.D. Tex., 12/10/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Clash of Clans" mobile game infringes a patent related to methods for rearranging in-game items using layout templates.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of mobile gaming, specifically within strategy games that involve building and managing complex virtual bases or cities, where efficient layout management is a key user feature.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant previously filed a petition for post-grant review (PGR) of the patent-in-suit (PGR2018-00008). The complaint alleges that in a Final Written Decision on January 2, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the patentability of claims 2-7 and 9. A Post-Grant Review Certificate issued on November 9, 2021, indicates that claims 5-7 were found patentable, while claims 1-4 and 8-20 were cancelled. The complaint also notes prior litigation in Japan involving the patent’s Japanese counterpart.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-09-27 | '594 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2016-09-12 | GREE Inc allegedly notifies Supercell of the application leading to the '594 Patent |
| 2017-03-21 | '594 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2017-05-18 | GREE files complaint against Supercell in Japan on counterpart patent |
| 2017-11-07 | Supercell files Post-Grant Review petition for the '594 Patent |
| 2019-01-02 | PTAB issues Final Written Decision in PGR proceeding |
| 2019-12-10 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2021-11-09 | Post-Grant Review Certificate Issue Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 - "Computer control method, control program and computer," issued March 21, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem in computer "city-building games" where, as a player's city and number of items increase, it becomes "very complicated for a player to change positions, types, levels, etc., of individual items" (Compl. ¶11; ’594 Patent, col. 1:50-53). This complexity can cause gameplay to become "monotonous" and may cause players to lose interest (Compl. ¶11; ’594 Patent, col. 1:57-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for controlling a computer that uses stored "templates" which define the positions of various game items ('594 Patent, Abstract). When a player issues a command to apply a template to a game area, the computer automatically moves the game items to the new positions defined by that template (Compl. ¶12; ’594 Patent, col. 4:34-38). This streamlines the process of reconfiguring a complex game layout.
- Technical Importance: This method is presented as an improvement to "the usability of city building games" which can "continuously attract players to the game" by simplifying a tedious aspect of gameplay (Compl. ¶14; ’594 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts representative claim 2, which depends on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 1 (cancelled) recites a method for controlling a computer, comprising the essential elements of:
- Storing game contents, their initial positions, and a template defining second positions.
- Upon a player's command to apply the template to a predetermined area,
- Moving the game contents from the first positions to the second positions defined by the template.
- Dependent Claim 2 (cancelled) adds to claim 1, reciting a method wherein:
- The storage unit also stores a template related to a "different player."
- When this template from the different player is applied, the computer moves the game contents to the positions defined by that template.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's mobile game "Clash of Clans" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- "Clash of Clans" is a game where players build and arrange a virtual village, which operates on mobile devices and communicates with remote servers (Compl. ¶11, ¶18-19).
- The complaint focuses on the game's "layout editor," which allegedly allows a player to save different base configurations ("templates") and apply them to change the village layout (Compl. ¶29). It further alleges that the game allows players to copy the layout of another player ("a different player") and save it as their own template for future use (Compl. ¶30).
- The complaint alleges the game has "millions of registered users worldwide" (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’594 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Claim 1 preamble] A method for controlling a computer that is provided with a storage unit configured to store game contents...first positions...and a template... | The Clash of Clans game runs on computers with storage and is configured to store game contents (buildings, walls), their positions, and layout templates. Figure 1 of the complaint depicts the game storing these elements (Compl. ¶28). | ¶27-28 | col. 2:1-6 |
| [Claim 1a] when the template is applied to a predetermined area...based on the command by the player, | A player uses the "layout editor" to select and apply a saved layout ("template") to their village. Figure 2 of the complaint illustrates a player selecting a template to apply (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 2:6-9 |
| [Claim 1b] moving, by the computer, the game contents...to the second positions of the game contents defined by the template... | Applying the template causes the game to automatically rearrange the player's village buildings and walls to match the positions defined in the selected template. | ¶29 | col. 2:9-12 |
| [Claim 2a] wherein the storage unit further stores a template related to a different player, | The game allows a player to copy the village layout of another player. Figure 3 of the complaint depicts the user interface for copying a template from "Player 2" (Compl. ¶30). Figure 4 shows the subsequent step of storing that copied template (Compl. ¶31). | ¶30-31 | col. 2:15-16 |
| [Claim 2b] when the template related to the different player is applied...the computer moves the game contents...to the second positions... | The complaint alleges that the application functionality is equally applicable to a template copied from another player, moving the first player's game contents according to the copied template's defined positions. | ¶32 | col. 2:17-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A definitional question is whether the "Layout Editor" and saved "Home Village" or "War Base" configurations in Clash of Clans fall within the scope of the term "template" as used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the process for applying a self-made template is "equally applicable" to a template copied from another player, but does not provide a separate visual showing the application of a copied template (Compl. ¶32). A factual question for the court may be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's functionality for applying a copied template meets every limitation of the asserted claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "template"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the saved layout feature in Clash of Clans infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the claimed invention from prior art layout-saving functionalities.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract provides a broad, functional definition: "a template defining positions of one or more of game contents" ('594 Patent, Abstract).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where a template is created by a player selecting an area of their own currently arranged game space ('594 Patent, col. 6:38-46; FIG. 3B). A party could argue this implies a "template" must be user-generated from an existing, manually-placed arrangement of items.
The Term: "moving...the game contents"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core infringing action. Its construction is important for determining how the accused product must operate, particularly if the number of items in a player's village differs from the number of items defined in the template.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the logic for handling mismatched numbers of items, suggesting a general rearrangement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific algorithms for handling cases where the number of game contents is larger or smaller than defined in the template, such as by moving items with the "smallest moving distance" ('594 Patent, col. 2:41-58). A defendant could argue that infringement requires the accused product to perform this specific logic.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing instructions on its websites that explain how to use the accused layout editor features, thereby encouraging infringing acts by users (Compl. ¶34).
- Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Clash of Clans application has "no substantial non-infringing uses" and is "especially made for use in a manner infringing" the patent (Compl. ¶35).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge dating to at least September 12, 2016, from a letter identifying the patent application, and definitive knowledge from at least November 7, 2017, when Defendant filed a PGR petition to challenge the patent's validity (Compl. ¶21, ¶23, ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive threshold issue for the court will be procedural: The complaint asserts claim 2 of the '594 patent. However, a Post-Grant Review Certificate issued after the complaint was filed indicates that claim 2 has been cancelled. The primary question is whether Plaintiff's cause of action based on this specific claim remains viable.
- Should the case proceed on other, surviving claims (e.g., claims 5-7), a central issue will be one of claim scope: Can the term "template", as defined in the patent, be construed to read on the "layout" saving and copying features within the Clash of Clans game, especially in light of the specific embodiments and operational logic described in the patent specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of prior art and estoppel: Given that Defendant previously challenged the patent in a PGR proceeding, a significant legal question will be the extent to which Defendant is estopped from raising invalidity arguments that were, or reasonably could have been, raised during that proceeding. The fact that the asserted claim survived the PTAB's initial Final Written Decision but was later cancelled presents a complex procedural and substantive backdrop for the litigation.