DCT
2:19-cv-00311
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-00311, E.D. Tex., 09/16/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Supercell is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile games, including "Clash of Clans," "Clash Royale," and "Hay Day," infringe patents related to cooperative social gaming mechanics.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for encouraging cooperative gameplay among users of different skill levels within online social games.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution for both asserted patents, the patent examiner was persuaded that the claims represented improvements to computer functionality and were not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’107 and ’439 Patents |
| 2015-03-04 | Applicant Response to § 101 rejection for ’107 Patent |
| 2015-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,079,107 Issues |
| 2016-08-09 | Office Action mailed during prosecution of ’439 Patent |
| 2017-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439 Issues |
| 2019-09-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,079,107 - “Game Control Method, Game Control Device, and Recording Medium” (issued Jul. 14, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a challenge in social games where cooperative groups, or "guilds," tend to consist of high-level experts, which can reduce the motivation for low-level players who find it difficult to join such groups and obtain desirable rewards (’107 Patent, col. 2:12-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a game control method that provides a "new mechanism that enables a user to play in cooperation with a plurality of users (guild) regardless of the [user's] level" (’107 Patent, col. 2:23-25). This is achieved through guild events where users in a group cooperatively collect "game pieces" to obtain a "game item" as a reward. The system can be configured so that the probability of a game piece appearing is tailored to a user's specific skill level, allowing players of all levels to contribute effectively (’107 Patent, col. 18:61-col. 19:4; Fig. 13).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to increase player engagement and retention across all skill levels by structuring cooperative play to be inclusive and rewarding for both beginners and experts (’107 Patent, col. 2:23-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and notes its allegations are exemplary (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- (a) storing skill level information for users;
- (b) grouping users into one or more groups;
- (c) providing game pieces to users in a group based on their skill level during certain game events;
- (d) storing allocation information about which pieces have been provided and what pieces are required for a reward;
- (e) determining if all required game pieces have been provided to the group; and
- (f) allocating the game item (reward) to the group or a user when all pieces are provided.
U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439 - “Game Control Method, Game Control Device, and Recording Medium” (issued Feb. 7, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Sharing a common specification with the ’107 Patent, the ’439 patent addresses the same problem of low-level player motivation in guild-based social games (’439 Patent, col. 2:10-22; Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: This invention details a method for a team-based game where users are grouped for a "group event." The system stores a "parameter value" for each user, which increases as the user makes progress in the event. The system monitors the group's progress and updates the parameter values for team members accordingly, using these values as a basis for providing rewards (’439 Patent, Abstract; col. 25:22-31).
- Technical Importance: This system provides a specific framework for tracking individual contributions to a cooperative goal, directly linking a user's progress within a group event to the rewards they can receive, thereby incentivizing participation from all members (’439 Patent, col. 2:23-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and notes its allegations are exemplary (Compl. ¶¶27, 43).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- (a) grouping users into groups;
- (b) storing a correspondence between users and groups;
- (c) transmitting information to initiate a cooperative group event;
- (d) storing a parameter value for each user that increases with progress;
- (e) monitoring and updating the parameter value for users based on group progress;
- (f) providing game pieces to users based on their parameter value;
- (g) storing allocation information about which piece was provided;
- (h) determining if all required game pieces have been provided; and
- (i) allocating a game item (reward) to the group or a user.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names Supercell’s "Clash of Clans," "Clash Royale," and "Hay Day" games as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶1). The detailed allegations focus on Clash Royale for the ’107 Patent and Clash of Clans for the ’439 Patent.
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as mobile gaming systems that operate on servers and are played by millions of users worldwide (Compl. ¶¶23-25).
- Clash Royale: This game allows users to form "clans" (groups) and participate in "clan wars" (group events). During these events, users allegedly earn "cards" ("game pieces") for their clan based on their skill level ("trophies"). The complaint alleges that the game determines if the clan has collected enough cards to obtain a reward, such as an "upgraded character" ("game item") (Compl. ¶¶32-36). A screenshot in the complaint shows a 2v2 battle, illustrating cooperative play between a first and second user (Compl. p. 8).
- Clash of Clans: This game allows users to join "clans" and participate in "clan games" (group events). Users complete challenges to increase a score ("parameter value"), which contributes to a collective clan total. This total score unlocks tiers of rewards ("game items") that users can select (Compl. ¶¶45-53). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts the "Clan Games" interface, showing different users contributing to a group progress bar (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'107 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Clash Royale) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) storing skill level information indicative of skill levels of each of the plurality of users of the game, in the storage unit; | Supercell stores a number of "trophies" for each player, which is alleged to be indicative of skill level. | ¶31 | col. 20:25-42 |
| (b) grouping the plurality of users into one or more groups; | Supercell allows players to join "clans." A screenshot shows a user interface for joining clans (Compl. p. 9). | ¶32 | col. 18:4-24 |
| (c) providing one or more of a plurality of game pieces to a first plurality of users in a first group... based on the skill level information, while the first plurality of users are at certain events in the game; | During "clan wars" ("certain events"), users earn "game pieces (e.g., cards)" for their clan, with awards allegedly based on the user's number of trophies (skill level). | ¶33 | col. 21:33-40 |
| (d) storing allocation information indicating which game piece has been provided to which user... and a number and type of game pieces required to obtain a game item as a reward, in the storage unit; | Supercell stores information on the user's game pieces (cards) and the number of cards required to obtain an upgrade (game item). | ¶34 | col. 19:1-24 |
| (e) determining whether all of the game pieces required to obtain said game item have been provided to the first group, based on the allocation information...; | Supercell determines whether the clan has collected enough game pieces (cards) to obtain a game item (upgrade). A visual shows a progress bar indicating "224/800" pieces required (Compl. p. 11). | ¶35 | col. 22:38-50 |
| (f) allocating in a memory, the game item to the first group or at least one of the first plurality of users, when it is determined that all the required game pieces have been provided. | If the clan has collected enough game pieces (cards), the game awards the clan an upgraded character. | ¶36 | col. 22:66-col. 23:4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether a "game piece," which the patent specification primarily describes as a component part of a larger item (e.g., a piece of a jewel), reads on a "card" in Clash Royale, which is a standalone, usable game asset.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether Clash Royale's system of awarding cards functions as the patent requires. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the provision of specific cards is "based on the skill level information," as opposed to being a general reward for participation in a "clan war"?
'439 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Clash of Clans) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) grouping the plurality of users into one or more groups; | Supercell allows players to join "clans." | ¶45 | col. 25:12-13 |
| (b) storing a correspondence between the plurality of users and the one or more groups in the storage unit; | The game stores the correspondence between players and their clan, which is evidenced by in-game chat functionality for the clan. | ¶46 | col. 25:14-16 |
| (c) transmitting information over the communication network to initiate a group event...; | Supercell transmits information to start "clan games," a cooperative group event. | ¶47 | col. 25:17-21 |
| (d) storing a parameter value for each of the plurality of users, wherein the parameter value for a respective user is increased as the respective user makes progress in the group event; | Supercell stores a parameter value, which is alleged to be the "number of times a condition was achieved" by each user. A screenshot annotates this value in the UI (Compl. p. 15). | ¶48 | col. 25:22-26 |
| (e) monitoring progress of the group event and updating the parameter value...; | The game monitors and updates the parameter value as the user and group make progress in the "clan games." | ¶49 | col. 25:27-31 |
| (f) providing at least one of a plurality of game pieces to each of the first plurality of users in the group event, based on the parameter value for the corresponding user...; | The complaint alleges Supercell provides "game pieces (e.g., the clan score)" to users. | ¶50 | col. 25:32-37 |
| (g) storing allocation information indicating which game piece has been provided to which user...; | Supercell allegedly stores allocation information by providing a ranking of users based on their clan score. | ¶51 | col. 25:38-40 |
| (h) determining whether all the required game pieces have been provided to the first plurality of users...; | Supercell determines whether the clan has achieved a high enough score to select an item. | ¶52 | col. 25:41-44 |
| (i) allocating in a memory, the game item to the first group or at least one of the first plurality of users...; | If the clan's score is high enough, the game awards the user the option to select a reward item. A screenshot highlights a "Game item" in the rewards interface (Compl. p. 17). | ¶53 | col. 25:45-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the "clan score" itself is the "game piece." A defendant may argue that a "game piece" is a discrete object required to obtain an item, whereas a "score" is a progress metric, not the piece itself.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system "provide" a "game piece" based on the parameter value, as recited in step 1(f)? Or does the parameter value (score) accumulate to a threshold that directly unlocks a reward, potentially bypassing the claimed step of providing a separate "game piece"? The complaint's theory appears to conflate the parameter value with the game piece, which raises a question of technical mismatch.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "game piece" (asserted in Claim 1 of both the ’107 and ’439 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theories. The complaint equates "game piece" with "cards" in Clash Royale and the "clan score" in Clash of Clans. The construction of this term will be critical in determining whether these accused features fall within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the goal is for a group to collect "a plurality of pieces (game pieces) constituting one jewel" (’107 Patent, col. 18:40-43). This could be argued to encompass any set of components, including abstract units like points, that collectively lead to a reward.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment describes "jewels" composed of distinct, collectible "pieces" (e.g., A1-A6) (’107 Patent, Fig. 13). A party may argue that this context limits "game piece" to a discrete, tangible-like digital object that is a component part of a larger whole, and not a standalone usable asset like a "card" or an abstract metric like a "score."
The Term: "skill level information" (asserted in Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges this limitation is met by the "number of trophies" stored for each player in Clash Royale (Compl. ¶31). The patent requires that game pieces be provided "based on the skill level information," making the definition of this term essential to the infringement read.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the general term "level information" and provides an example of users having levels like "5" and "25," suggesting it could cover any numerical indicator of player progress or ability (’107 Patent, Fig. 15; col. 20:25-42).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's motivation is to create systems for "low-level users," "intermediate-level users," and "high-level users," and it describes setting different appearance probabilities for game pieces for users in these distinct ranges (e.g., levels 1-20, 21-50, 51+) (’107 Patent, col. 18:61-col. 19:40). This might support a narrower construction requiring a tiered or categorized system rather than a continuous, open-ended metric like a trophy count.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The allegations for inducement are based on Supercell allegedly providing instructions on its websites, help pages, and YouTube channels that encourage users to play the games in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶37, 54). The allegations for contributory infringement assert that the accused games are especially made for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶38, 55).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Supercell's knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing date of this Complaint" and its continued infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶¶41, 58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "game piece," which is described in the patent specification as a discrete component of a larger collectible item (e.g., a piece of a jewel), be construed to cover the functionally different accused features—either a standalone game asset ("card") or an abstract progress metric ("clan score")?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the accused games perform the specific sequence of steps claimed? In particular, for the '439 patent, is the "parameter value" (score) used to "provide" a separate "game piece" as the claim requires, or does the score itself directly unlock a reward, suggesting a potential mismatch in the claimed and actual technical process?
- A final central question will relate to claim differentiation: Given the similarities in the patents and accused features, the court will need to determine how the specific limitations of each patent—such as the "skill level"-based distribution in the '107 patent versus the "parameter value"-based system in the '439 patent—map to the distinct mechanics of Clash Royale's "Clan Wars" and Clash of Clans' "Clan Games."