DCT

2:20-cv-00084

Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00084, N.D. Cal., 02/28/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Supercell alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California based on Defendant GREE's systematic business contacts in the district, including maintaining offices through affiliates, engaging local counsel for patent licensing and enforcement activities, and distributing mobile game applications to users in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its mobile games do not infringe eight U.S. patents owned by Defendant and that three of those patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to various user interface and game progression mechanics in mobile video games, a commercially significant sector of the software industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute began with a September 2016 letter from GREE alleging infringement, which led to licensing discussions. Supercell subsequently filed petitions for post-grant review (PGR) against U.S. Patent Nos. 9,597,594, 9,636,583, and 9,770,659. The provided documents indicate that these PGRs resulted in the cancellation of all claims of the ’583 and ’659 patents and the cancellation of a majority of the claims of the ’594 patent, substantially altering the scope of the dispute after the complaint was filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-01-31 Priority Date for ’843 Patent
2013-02-26 Priority Date for ’873 Patent
2013-03-04 Priority Date for ’137 and ’481 Patents
2013-05-31 Priority Date for ’583, ’659, and ’273 Patents
2013-09-27 Priority Date for ’594 Patent
2016-09-12 GREE sends letter to Supercell alleging infringement
2016-10-04 ’273 Patent Issues
2016-10-14 GREE provides "exemplary claim charts" to Supercell
2017-03-21 ’594 Patent Issues
2017-03-28 ’137 Patent Issues
2017-05-02 ’583 Patent Issues
2017-06-01 Supercell's Brawl Stars released in Canada (earliest date mentioned)
2017-09-26 ’659 Patent Issues
2017-10-27 ’873 Patent Issues (Note: Complaint states Oct. 24, 2017, but the patent document states Oct. 27, 2017)
2018-05-01 ’481 Patent Issues
2018-05-15 ’843 Patent Issues
2018-12-12 Supercell's Brawl Stars released globally
2019-02-28 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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’s background section describes that in "city building games," it becomes "very complicated for a player to change positions, types, levels, etc., of individual items" as a city develops. This is a particular issue when the arrangement of items is a key factor in defending against attacks from other players. ( ’971 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for controlling a computer to simplify the rearrangement of game elements. It allows a player to define a "template" based on the arrangement of items in a specific area of the game space. This template, which stores the positions of the game contents, can then be applied to another area, causing the computer to automatically move the existing game contents to the new positions defined by the template. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-11).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the user experience in complex strategy and simulation games by reducing the manual effort required for large-scale reorganization of in-game assets. (Compl. ¶18; ’971 Patent, col. 1:60-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of one or more claims of the ’594 Patent (Compl. ¶56). Post-grant review proceedings subsequent to the complaint's filing resulted in the cancellation of claims 1-4 and 8-20, leaving claims 5-7 as the only claims presumed valid.
  • The surviving claims depend from cancelled independent claim 1. Claim 1 described a method for controlling a computer in a city building game with the following core elements:
    • a storage unit configured to store game contents, positions of game contents, and a template defining positions of game contents
    • when the template is applied to a predetermined area based on a player command, moving, by the computer, the game contents arranged within the game space to the positions defined by the template
  • Claim 5, which was found patentable, adds a specific algorithm for when the number of existing game items is smaller than the number of positions defined in the template: "the computer moves the game contents arranged at the first positions... to the second positions... to which the moving distance is the smallest." (’971 Patent, col. 27:8-16).
  • Claims 6 and 7 further add limitations for displaying empty positions and for handling cases where the number of game items is larger than the template positions, respectively. (’971 Patent, col. 27:17-20; col. 27:21-30).

U.S. Patent No. 9,636,583 - "Storage Medium Storing Game Program, Game Processing Method, And Information Processing Apparatus"

  • Issued: May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional two-dimensional card battle games as potentially "boring" and notes that "there have been calls for improvement." (’583 Patent, col. 1:43-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a game where the battle screen is organized into a series of frames or "panels," similar to a comic book. A player selects panels representing characters or actions from a database, which are then placed into the frames. The game progresses by executing these frames in a predetermined order, creating a narrative, cartoon-like battle sequence that aims to provide a "high visual effect." (’583 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-53).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to enhance player engagement in battle-oriented mobile games by presenting the gameplay in a more dynamic and visually narrative format than traditional static card battles. (Compl. ¶24; ’583 Patent, col. 4:56-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’583 Patent (Compl. ¶¶66-76).
  • A post-grant review certificate provided with the court documents, issued October 27, 2021, states that all claims (1-15) of the ’583 Patent are cancelled. (’583 Patent, PGR Certificate, p. 2).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659, "Storage Medium Storing Game Program, Game Processing Method, And Information Processing Apparatus," issued September 26, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the ’583 Patent and relates to the same comic-book-style battle screen technology. It claims a game system where battles unfold across a series of panels that are selected and arranged on a game screen, with the game progressing by executing the panels in order. (Compl. ¶18; ’659 Patent, Abstract). A post-grant review certificate dated October 25, 2021, indicates that all claims of this patent have been cancelled.
  • Asserted Claims: General allegation of infringing one or more claims (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: GREE allegedly identified Supercell's Clash Royale game as infringing the Japanese patent to which the ’659 Patent claims priority (Compl. ¶¶2, 8).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,956,481 and 9,604,137

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,956,481 and 9,604,137, both titled "Server, Control Method Therefor, Computer-Readable Recording Medium, and Game System," issued May 1, 2018 and March 28, 2017, respectively.
  • Technology Synopsis: These related patents describe a server-controlled game system for a battle event. Multiple "character cards" are aligned and displayed in a first field (a "palette"), and a player selects a card to use in battle. The core mechanic involves the server replenishing the first field with another character card as cards are selected and used, creating a dynamic and continuous pool of options for the player. (Compl. ¶¶19-20; ’481 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: General allegation of infringing one or more claims (Compl. ¶¶89, 95).
  • Accused Features: GREE allegedly identified Supercell's Clash Royale game as infringing the Japanese patent to which these patents claim priority (Compl. ¶¶8, 14).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,457,273

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,457,273, "Storage Medium Storing Game Program, Game Processing Method, and Information Processing Apparatus," issued October 4, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the cancelled ’583 and ’659 patents, this patent also describes a game system using a cartoon or comic-book-style interface. The system involves storing databases of "panels" for each character, selecting panels to be placed in frames on a game screen, and executing the frames to progress the game. (Compl. ¶22; ’273 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: General allegation of infringing one or more claims (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: GREE allegedly identified Supercell's Clash Royale game as infringing the Japanese patent to which the ’273 Patent claims priority (Compl. ¶26).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,968,843

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,968,843, "Communication System, Method for Controlling Communication System, and Program," issued May 15, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication system where a server provides "advisory information" to a player's terminal. Based on parameters indicating the status of the player's in-game space (e.g., a city), the server generates and transmits suggestions for the player's next action to improve their game state. (Compl. ¶21; ’843 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: General allegation of infringing one or more claims (Compl. ¶101).
  • Accused Features: GREE allegedly identified Supercell's Boom Beach game as infringing the Japanese patent to which the ’843 Patent claims priority (Compl. ¶20).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,795,873

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,795,873, "Shooting Game Control Method and Game System," issued October 27, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a control method for a shooting game on a device with a touch panel. The system displays a "first frame indicative of a shooting effective range" on the screen based on the position of a player's touch. The system then determines if an attack target is within that frame when an attack is initiated. (Compl. ¶23; ’873 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: General allegation of infringing one or more claims (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: GREE has allegedly asserted that Supercell's Brawl Stars game infringes the ’873 Patent (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Supercell’s mobile games Clash of Clans, Clash Royale, Boom Beach, and Brawl Stars as the instrumentalities that GREE has accused of infringement (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint provides limited technical detail on the accused products' functionality. It notes that GREE identified infringement based on a review of these games, which are described as "at least four mobile game products worldwide" (Compl. ¶¶17-19).
  • Clash of Clans is identified in relation to the ’594 Patent's city-building template technology (Compl. ¶18).
  • Clash Royale is identified in relation to patents concerning card-based battle mechanics and panel-based game progression (Compl. ¶¶24, 26).
  • Boom Beach is identified in relation to patents on server-based advisory systems (Compl. ¶20).
  • Brawl Stars is identified in relation to patents on shooting game controls (Compl. ¶17).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain detailed infringement allegations or claim charts. It states that GREE provided "exemplary claim charts" to Supercell but does not include them as exhibits (Compl. ¶27). The analysis below summarizes the likely infringement theories based on the technology of the patents and the general nature of the accused games.

  • Narrative Summary for U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594: GREE's infringement theory likely centers on features within Clash of Clans that allow players to save and share the layouts of their bases. Such features could be alleged to function as the claimed "template" system. The core of the dispute would involve comparing the game's layout editing and application logic with the specific algorithmic steps required by surviving claims 5-7, such as the process for resolving mismatches between the number of structures in a player's inventory and the number of slots in a selected layout by minimizing "moving distance."

  • Narrative Summary for U.S. Patent No. 9,636,583: GREE’s infringement allegations against Clash Royale concerning the ’583 Patent are likely rendered moot by the post-grant review proceeding that resulted in the cancellation of all claims of the patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the ’594 Patent, a central question may be whether the term "template" as defined in the patent is broad enough to read on the specific implementation of base layout editors or sharing features in Clash of Clans. The analysis may focus on whether the game's features require the explicit, player-driven creation and application steps described in the patent's specification.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’594 Patent infringement analysis will be whether the accused Clash of Clans functionality, when applying a pre-set layout, executes the specific "smallest moving distance" algorithm required by surviving claim 5 when there are fewer game items than available positions in the layout.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "template" (from the ’954 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the ’594 Patent. The scope of "template" will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires a static, saved file created through a distinct user action (e.g., a "save template" command), or if it could also cover more dynamic or implicit layout arrangements used within the game's editing mode.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a template as "defining positions of one or more of game contents," which could arguably encompass any data structure that stores layout information, regardless of how it is created or stored. (’954 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict a process where a player explicitly selects an area on the screen and gives a command to "Create" a template from it, suggesting a discrete, user-initiated act of creation is required. (’954 Patent, Fig. 3A-3B, col. 6:38-41).

  • The Term: "moving... the game contents... to which the moving distance is the smallest" (from claim 5 of the ’954 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific logic for resolving a mismatch between available items and template slots. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product employs this precise optimization algorithm.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not specify the type of "distance" (e.g., Euclidean, Manhattan), which might allow for some latitude in implementation. The patent mentions "Manhattan distance" as one example, but not as a requirement. (’954 Patent, col. 7:61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term requires a specific conditional action: the "smallest distance" mapping is only performed "when the number of game contents arranged within the game space is smaller than the number of game contents for which the second positions are defined by the template." Evidence of this exact condition and corresponding algorithmic response may be required to prove infringement. (’954 Patent, col. 27:8-16).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement allegations.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement allegations.

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

  1. Mootness and Procedural Impact: A central threshold issue will be the legal effect of the successful post-grant reviews. To what extent has the dispute been resolved or narrowed by the cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,636,583 and 9,770,659, and the invalidation of most claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594?
  2. Infringement and Algorithmic Equivalence: For the surviving claims of the ’594 Patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical and algorithmic correspondence: does the base layout editor in Clash of Clans implement the specific conditional logic of claims 5-7, particularly the "smallest moving distance" algorithm for resolving item-slot mismatches, or is there a fundamental difference in its operational logic?
  3. Scope of Functionality: For the remaining asserted patents, the case will likely turn on questions of functional scope: do the dynamic card-deployment mechanics in Clash Royale, the advisory notifications in Boom Beach, and the aiming controls in Brawl Stars perform the specific, multi-step processes required by the asserted claims, or do they represent distinct technical implementations outside the patents' claimed scope?