DCT
2:19-cv-00172
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-00172, E.D. Tex., 05/13/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant Supercell Oy is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Brawl Stars" mobile game infringes a patent related to touch-screen controls for shooting games.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface methods for aiming and attacking in shooting games on mobile devices with limited screen space.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on May 13, 2019, one day prior to the asserted May 14, 2019 issue date of the patent-in-suit. The patent is a continuation of an earlier application, but the complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,286,302 Priority Date |
| 2019-05-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,286,302 Issue Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,286,302 - "Shooting game control method and game system"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,286,302, "Shooting game control method and game system," issued May 14, 2019 (the "’302 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of designing intuitive and precise shooting controls for games on devices with limited display areas, such as smartphones (’302 Patent, col. 1:62-65). It notes that prior art systems can be complex, hindering speedy gameplay, while simple auto-aiming functions make it "difficult to express a weighting or the like of scores based on a difference in shooting position" (’302 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a control method to "achieve both precise shooting and speedy game development by a simple and easy-to-understand operation" (’302 Patent, col. 2:14-16). The system accepts a first touch operation on the screen and, in response, displays a "first frame indicative of a shooting effective range" (’302 Patent, Abstract). While this frame is displayed, the system accepts a second instruction for an attack and controls the attack based on the position of the frame (’302 Patent, col. 2:21-32). This two-stage process is intended to separate the aiming and firing actions for better control.
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to balance the precision of manual aiming with the usability required for fast-paced action on a small touch screen, a persistent design challenge in mobile gaming.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of claim 1, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, require instructions that cause an electronic device to:
- Cause the display to display a frame indicative of a shooting effective range in accordance with a first touch operation on the touch panel;
- Identify a second touch operation at the touch panel as an instruction for an attack when the frame is displayed; and
- Control to attack in accordance with a display position of the frame when the instruction for the attack is identified.
- The complaint states that its infringement theories are exemplary, suggesting it may assert other claims later (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Brawl Stars" mobile game, which operates on iOS and Android devices (Compl. ¶¶1, 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on the game's control system for aiming and firing character weapons (Compl. ¶¶26-28). The alleged functionality involves a player touching a control area on the screen, which causes an aiming indicator to appear. The player can then drag their finger to aim and release their finger to fire the weapon (Compl. ¶¶26-27). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user being instructed to "DRAG the RED CONTROL...to aim your shots, and release to fire" (Compl. p. 7).
- The complaint alleges that Brawl Stars has "millions of registered users worldwide," positioning it as a commercially significant product in the mobile gaming market (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’302 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] cause the display to display a frame indicative of a shooting effective range in accordance with a first touch operation on the touch panel; | When a player touches a red touch control, the game displays a fan-shaped indicator representing the weapon's range and area of effect. A screenshot labels this as the "Frame is displayed indicative of a shooting effective range." (Compl. p. 7). | ¶26 | col. 10:52-55 |
| [b] identify a second touch operation at the touch panel as an instruction for an attack when the frame is displayed; | Lifting the player's finger from the screen ("touch off") is identified as the instruction to attack. A screenshot labels this finger-lift action as the "Second touch operation (Touch off)." (Compl. p. 7). | ¶27 | col. 10:56-58 |
| [c] control to attack in accordance with a display position of the frame when the instruction for the attack is identified. | The attack is performed based on the position and orientation of the displayed aiming indicator at the moment the player lifts their finger. A screenshot labels this as an "Attack within the frame." (Compl. p. 8). | ¶28 | col. 10:59-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim term "second touch operation" can be construed to cover the "touch off" or finger-release action alleged in the complaint. The patent specification includes embodiments that describe detecting a subsequent touch inside the displayed frame to execute a shot (e.g., ’302 Patent, FIG. 2, steps S113-S114), which could suggest that a second, distinct screen contact is required, rather than the cessation of the first contact.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the fan-shaped aiming reticle in Brawl Stars constitutes a "frame" as that term is used in the patent. While the patent mentions the possibility of rectangular or other shapes (’302 Patent, col. 8:12-15), its primary embodiments depict a closed "shooting button circle SC" (’302 Patent, FIG. 3). The parties may dispute whether the accused product's directional indicator, which is not a closed geometric shape, meets this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "second touch operation"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. If it is construed broadly to include the cessation of a touch (i.e., a "touch off" or release event), it may support the plaintiff's infringement theory. If it is construed narrowly to require a second, distinct physical contact with the touch panel (e.g., a tap), the accused drag-and-release mechanic might not meet the claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 itself does not specify the nature of the "second touch operation," only that one is identified at the touch panel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures may support a narrower reading. The flowchart in FIG. 2, for instance, depicts a step of checking for a "Touch in circle?" (S113) after the frame is moved, which implies a distinct second tap is needed to trigger the "Execute shooting" step (S114). The specification also describes executing a shot after a "touch operation has been executed in the shooting button circle SC" (’302 Patent, col. 4:55-58).
The Term: "frame"
Context and Importance: The infringement case depends on the accused aiming indicator in Brawl Stars being characterized as a "frame." Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the complaint shows a conical or fan-shaped indicator (Compl. p. 7), whereas the patent's primary embodiment is a circle (’302 Patent, FIG. 3).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating that the shape of the frame "may be converted into a rectangular slit-shaped simulating a loophole, and rectangular or other shapes simulating a window" and that the "shape of the range...[is] not limited" (’302 Patent, col. 8:12-19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "frame" itself, and its consistent depiction as a "shooting button circle SC" in the patent's figures (FIGS. 3-6), could be used to argue for a definition requiring a boundary that encloses an area, which a directional, fan-shaped indicator may not do.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Supercell provides instructions on its public website that "explain how to use the Brawl Stars application in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶29). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Brawl Stars application "is especially made for use in a manner that infringes" and "has no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge, asserting that Supercell "has had knowledge of the Tsuchiya ’302 patent at least since the date of filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "second touch operation," as used in the context of the ’302 patent, be interpreted to encompass the "release" of a finger in a drag-and-release gesture, or does the patent’s disclosure limit the term to a separate, subsequent tap on the screen?
A key question of infringement will be whether the accused product's fan-shaped aiming indicator is technically and legally equivalent to the "frame indicative of a shooting effective range" claimed in the patent, which is primarily described and depicted as a circular, enclosing shape.