Flick Intelligence LLC v. Activision Publishing Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Activision Publishing, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00050, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Call of Duty® Mobile" game infringes a patent related to methods for interacting with multimedia content using a wireless device to select on-screen elements and receive supplemental data.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to second-screen or enhanced-viewing systems that allow users to interact with video or game content on a primary display by using a secondary device as a pointer or controller.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent is noted to be owned by the Plaintiff by assignment.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762, "Methods, systems and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing," Issued October 4, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while people often have questions about elements appearing in video content (e.g., actors, products, music), existing information systems are often "very general." The patent identifies a need for systems that allow a user to select a specific scene element and obtain information about only that element (’762 Patent, col. 1:47-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user registers a "wireless hand held device" (HHD) with a controller connected to a multimedia display. The user can then select a "profile icon" to act as a cursor on the main display. By using the HHD to move the cursor and select data (i.e., an object or character) being rendered in an "event" (e.g., a movie or game), the user can receive "supplemental data" about that specific selection on either the HHD or the main display (’762 Patent, col. 2:20-34; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more direct and granular interactive experience between a user and displayed media content, moving beyond passive viewing or general-purpose search to real-time, object-specific data retrieval.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1, 12, and 19 are asserted.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • selecting at least one profile icon for use as a first cursor during interaction of a first wireless hand held device with at least one multimedia display during rendering of an event
  • registering a second wireless hand held device with a controller
  • selecting at least one additional profile icon for use as a second cursor
  • altering the appearance of the first or second cursor such that the second cursor is visibly distinct from the first cursor
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Call of Duty® Mobile" and associated systems as the accused instrumentality (Compl. p. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "offers for sale, sells and manufactures device(s), including but not limited to, for supporting bidirectional communications and data sharing and related systems" that infringe the ’762 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of "Call of Duty® Mobile" beyond these general characterizations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations can be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶9). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. The complaint's narrative allegations are general, stating that the accused product infringes one or more of claims 1-20 of the ’762 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Without the claim chart exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the standard user interface of a mobile game like "Call of Duty® Mobile," which is typically controlled by a user's fingers on a touchscreen, meets the claim limitations of a "wireless hand held device" interacting with a separate "multimedia display" via a "controller" to manipulate a "profile icon."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what functionality in "Call of Duty® Mobile" corresponds to receiving "supplemental data" based on the selection of an on-screen element as claimed. An evidentiary question will be whether the game provides data beyond normal gameplay functions in a manner that maps onto the patent's claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "profile icon" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical to determining if a standard game cursor or reticle constitutes infringement. The case may turn on whether a "profile icon" must be tied to a specific, pre-established user profile or can be construed more broadly as any user-controlled cursor.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently uses "cursor" and "icon" interchangeably, suggesting the "profile" aspect may not be a strict limitation (e.g., ’762 Patent, col. 2:23-24, "selecting at least one profile icon for use as a cursor").
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses a step of "Establish user profile and designate profile icon" (Fig. 23, element 554). Embodiments show distinct, user-selected icons (e.g., a dollar sign, a deer, a skull) tied to different users' HHDs, suggesting the icon is a personal identifier (’762 Patent, Fig. 20; col. 25:40-52).

• The Term: "wireless hand held device" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on whether a single device running a mobile game (e.g., a smartphone) can be both the "wireless hand held device" and the "multimedia display." Practitioners may focus on whether the claims require two separate hardware components.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification includes a "passive pointing device such as a hand" and a finger as potential pointing devices, which could support an argument that interaction on a single touchscreen device falls within the claim's scope (’762 Patent, col. 9:15-19; col. 14:41-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and description consistently depict a system architecture where the HHD (120, 502) is a distinct component from the "multimedia display" (121, 126) with which it interacts, often via a "controller" (503). This suggests a multi-component system is contemplated (’762 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 15).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The factual basis for this instruction is not specified.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has known of the ’762 Patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit" and seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. ¶10; Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations, absent the referenced claim chart, provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under modern pleading standards.
• Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, specifically whether the term "profile icon" can be construed to cover a generic in-game cursor and whether the "wireless hand held device" interacting with a "multimedia display" can read on a user interacting with a single smartphone via its touchscreen.
• Evidentiary Mismatch: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does "Call of Duty® Mobile" actually perform the specific steps of registering multiple devices, assigning distinct cursors, and providing "supplemental data" in response to a selection, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused product's gameplay mechanics and the patent's claimed method?