Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00756
• Patent #: 9,956,481
• Filed: March 1, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Server, Control Method Therefor, Computer-Readable Recording Medium, and Game System
• Brief Description: The ’481 patent describes a card-based battle game program where a player selects "game content" (e.g., character cards) from a hand (a "first field") to attack an enemy in a battlefield (a "second field"). The ability to play cards is governed by a resource system involving a cost for each card (a "second parameter value") and a total available resource pool (a "third parameter value") that regenerates over time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, and 8 are obvious over Reizei in view of Mahar.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Reizei (Application # 2003/0109299) and Mahar (Patent 6,554,702).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reizei, a card game program, taught the core system of the independent claims. This included a terminal device with a display, a storage unit for game data, and a control unit. Reizei disclosed a game with a player hand ("first field"), a battle area ("second field"), player and enemy characters, and an action point (AP) system. Reizei’s AP system corresponded to the claimed "second parameter value" (cost to play a card) and "third parameter value" (total available AP per turn). However, Petitioner contended that Reizei did not explicitly teach refilling the player’s hand after a card is played. Mahar was introduced to supply this missing element, as it disclosed a real-time card game where, "as soon as the player uses a card, new ones are taken from the players’ repertoire to fill their hand."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mahar's well-known hand-refilling mechanic into Reizei's game system to create a more dynamic and continuous gameplay experience. This modification would prevent the game from stalling and was a common feature in the art, representing a predictable design choice.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as incorporating a standard card-drawing function (from Mahar) into an existing electronic card game framework (from Reizei) involved applying known programming techniques to a predictable system.

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Reizei in view of Mahar and Moody.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Reizei (Application # 2003/0109299), Mahar (Patent 6,554,702), and Moody (Patent 6,729,621).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Reizei and Mahar to address dependent claims 2 and 3. These claims added limitations related to the user interface of hand management, specifically that newly drawn cards are different from played cards (claim 2) and that remaining cards in the hand are rearranged to fill the space of a played card before a new card is added adjacent to them (claim 3). While Reizei’s game deck limitations suggested a new card would likely be different, Petitioner introduced Moody to explicitly teach these UI mechanics. Moody, which described a video poker game, disclosed removing selected cards from a hand, rearranging the remaining cards to fill the open region, and updating that region with new cards dealt adjacent to the remaining hand.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the hand-refilling feature from Mahar into Reizei’s game would be motivated to consult known solutions for visually managing a hand of cards on a screen. Moody provided a well-understood and intuitive method for this, making it an obvious choice to improve the user experience of the combined Reizei/Mahar system.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was considered predictable, as both Reizei and Moody involved the electronic display and manipulation of virtual cards in a player's hand, making the integration of Moody’s UI logic into Reizei’s game engine straightforward.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Reizei and Mahar combination. These grounds added Hawkins (Patent 9,511,285) to teach displaying game content in a different state on the battlefield than in the hand (claim 4); Coleman (Application # 2010/0304862) to teach enabling card selection before a timer expires (claim 5); and Braunlich (Patent 6,322,077) to teach displaying a card’s cost in the hand but not on the battlefield (claim 6).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "game content" / "game contents": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an item capable of being held by the player that can be selected." This construction was argued to be critical because it anchored the "game content" to items in the player's hand (like cards), aligning with the patent's description and the function of the prior art references.
• "second parameter value": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a cost of selecting game content for a battle event." This construction tied the parameter directly to the resource cost (e.g., action points) required to play a card, a central mechanic disclosed in both the patent and the prior art.
• "third parameter value": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a cost available for selecting game content for a battle event." This defined the term as the total resource pool (e.g., total action points) available to the player, from which the "second parameter value" is subtracted.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’481 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.