Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,701,344
• Filed: September 25, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Activision Blizzard, Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.; 2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Acceleration Bay LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Distributed Game Environment
• Brief Description: The ’344 patent describes a computer network for a multiplayer game environment that broadcasts information between participants. The patent claims a network configured as a non-complete, m-regular graph, where information is propagated using a "flooding" technique.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are obvious over DirectPlay in view of Shoubridge.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: DirectPlay (a 1998 book by Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX) and Shoubridge (a 1997 IEEE paper by Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DirectPlay discloses a multiplayer gaming framework, including a flexible Application Program Interface (API) and matchmaking "lobby" services that allow developers to create multiparticipant games over various network types. However, DirectPlay does not mandate a specific network topology or broadcast mechanism. Petitioner contended that Shoubridge remedies this by disclosing the precise network structure required by the claims: a non-complete, m-regular, and m-connected graph (specifically, a 64-node, 4-regular "torus" graph). Shoubridge also explicitly teaches using a "constrained flooding" protocol to reliably broadcast data across this topology, where each node forwards a message to its neighbors. The combination of DirectPlay's gaming environment and Shoubridge's specific network architecture allegedly renders all challenged claims obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references for three primary reasons. First, DirectPlay was designed as a flexible, open platform that invited developers to use custom "service providers" for different network topologies, and Shoubridge described a suitable, robust network topology. Second, both references addressed the core problem of broadcasting information to multiple participants in a network. Third, DirectPlay taught the need for reliability and scalability for large games with "hundreds or even thousands of players," and Shoubridge's disclosure of flooding over an m-regular graph provided a known, highly reliable, and robust solution for such dynamic network environments.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Shoubridge's well-documented and analyzed network topology and flooding protocol to DirectPlay's gaming framework would predictably result in a reliable and scalable multiplayer gaming network, achieving the benefits described in both references.

Ground 2: Claims 1-11 and 16-19 are obvious over Shoubridge in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shoubridge and the general knowledge of a POSITA.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Shoubridge, standing alone, discloses the key technical limitations of the claims. It explicitly describes a non-complete, 4-regular, 4-connected network topology and the use of a "constrained flooding" algorithm for broadcasting information. The reference models a generic communications network, not specifically a gaming environment. However, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious for a POSITA to apply the networking principles taught in Shoubridge to the well-known field of computer gaming.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to apply a known, robust networking solution to a known problem domain. Petitioner contended that since Shoubridge teaches a generic but high-reliability network communication system, a POSITA would have readily recognized its applicability to multiplayer gaming, a field known to require reliable data broadcasting among many users. The use of TCP/IP, peer-to-peer connections, and running processes on computers were all obvious design choices for a POSITA implementing such a network for any purpose, including gaming.
  • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success would have been high, as this ground merely involves applying a known networking technology from a generic context (Shoubridge) to a conventional application (multiplayer gaming) to achieve the predictable result of a stable gaming environment.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "m-regular": Construed as "each node is connected to exactly m other nodes."
• "non-complete graph": Construed as a "graph in which at least two nodes are not connected to each other."
• "m-connected": Construed to mean that "dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes."
• "means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" (cl. 13): This means-plus-function term was construed under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to have the structure of "a game web site through which players can view the state of current games and register new games," as disclosed in the specification. Petitioner noted its intent to argue this term is indefinite in litigation.
• "means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel" (cl. 13): This means-plus-function term was construed under BRI to have the structure of a "software 'broadcaster component' that interfaces with a 'game application program'," as disclosed in the specification. Petitioner also noted its intent to argue this term is indefinite in litigation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner disclosed that it had concurrently filed a separate IPR petition against the ’344 patent that asserted obviousness based on a different prior art combination (DirectPlay and Lin). Petitioner requested that the Board institute review on both petitions because they involve different combinations of prior art and distinct substantive analyses. Petitioner argued that if the Board were to consider denying one petition as redundant under §325(d), it should still institute the grounds from the other petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institute an inter partes review and issue a final written decision finding claims 1-19 of the ’344 patent unpatentable and ordering them to be canceled.