Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 9,795,873
• Filed: December 4, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Shooting Game Control Method and Game System
• Brief Description: The ’873 patent describes a control method for shooting games on touch-screen devices. The method involves identifying a first touch operation to display a "first frame" representing a shooting effective range, and then identifying a second touch operation as an instruction to attack a target within that frame.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 15-17 are obvious over Hall in view of Detwiller.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hall (Patent 8,751,159) and Detwiller (Application # 2011/0173587).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hall discloses the core elements of the independent claims. Hall teaches an artillery simulation game on a mobile device where a first touch on a map (the "first touch operation") causes the display of a circular "aiming reticle" at the tapped location. This reticle is argued to be the claimed "first frame indicative of a shooting effective range." While Hall discloses a software "fire" button, Petitioner asserted that Detwiller is used to supply the explicit teaching of using a second touch on a virtual on-screen button as the "instruction for an attack." The combination, therefore, teaches displaying an aiming frame upon a first touch and firing upon a second touch on a button.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references as a simple substitution of one known element for another. Petitioner contended a POSITA would find it obvious to implement Hall’s generic "fire" button using the specific virtual touch-button attack mechanism taught by Detwiller to create a more intuitive and easily developed user interface for a touch-screen game.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a virtual button (Detwiller) with a touch-based aiming system (Hall) involves applying known user interface elements to their intended purpose, leading to the predictable result of an on-screen button firing a projectile.

Ground 2: Claims 2-4, 12-14 are obvious over Hall and Detwiller in further view of Kolmykov-Zotov.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hall (Patent 8,751,159), Detwiller (Application # 2011/0173587), and Kolmykov-Zotov (Patent 7,489,306).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Hall/Detwiller combination to address dependent claims reciting a "second frame" and "movement operation graphic indicia." Petitioner argued that Kolmykov-Zotov, which addresses precision targeting on touch screens, discloses these missing elements. Kolmykov-Zotov teaches a "cursor handle," a circle displayed concentrically around a cursor, which corresponds to the claimed "second frame." A user can drag this handle (a "slide operation") to move the cursor with high precision. This mechanism is mapped to the claims' recitation of moving both frames via a slide operation on the second frame. Embodiments in Kolmykov-Zotov showing multiple concentric circles as the handle are argued to teach the "movement operation graphic indicia" of claim 4.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing the game in Hall would recognize the inherent imprecision of using a finger to aim on a touch screen, a problem Kolmykov-Zotov was designed to solve. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Kolmykov-Zotov’s cursor handle to provide players with a more precise way to adjust the aiming reticle in Hall's game, thereby improving gameplay.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would be expected to succeed because integrating a known precision-aiming tool (Kolmykov-Zotov's handle) with a known aiming reticle (Hall's) is a predictable application of user interface design principles.

Ground 3: Claims 8-10 are obvious over Hall and Detwiller in further view of Sakurai.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hall (Patent 8,751,159), Detwiller (Application # 2011/0173587), and Sakurai (Patent 9,149,720).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses independent claims 8-10, which require a client-server architecture where a terminal device performs initial operations and a game server "controls to attack." While Hall discloses a networked game, Petitioner used Sakurai to explicitly teach a client-server system for a shooter game where attack-related processing is performed on the server. Petitioner argued that Hall's mobile device maps to the "terminal device," while Sakurai's server maps to the "game server." The combination results in a system where the player aims and provides attack instructions on the client device (per Hall/Detwiller), but the server determines the attack's outcome (per Sakurai).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement Hall's networked game using Sakurai's client-server model to simplify game operation, make it easier to develop and maintain, and reduce the computational load on client devices. Offloading attack calculations to a server also reduces opportunities for cheating, providing a strong incentive for its adoption in a multiplayer game.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect this combination to work predictably, as distributing processing tasks between a client and server is a well-established and conventional architecture for networked games.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "in accordance with...the first touch operation" (claims 1, 8-11): Petitioner argued that based on the prosecution history of related patents in the ’873 patent’s family, a POSITA would construe this term to mean that the touch operation "causes the first frame to be displayed." This construction was asserted to be a clear and unambiguous disclaimer made by the applicant to overcome prior art during previous examinations.
• "shooting effective range" (claims 1, 8-11): Petitioner contended that a specific construction for this term is unnecessary because its plain and ordinary meaning is clear from the specification. The patent describes the "target circle" (the "first frame") as being "representative of a range in which a bullet can hit an attack target," which Petitioner argued simply means "a range in which shooting is effective."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a) or §325(d).
• §325(d): Denial was argued to be inappropriate because the petition asserted new prior art and arguments not previously evaluated by the USPTO. Hall and Detwiller were not before the examiner, and while Sakurai was cited, it was never substantively discussed or used as a basis for rejection.
• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that because the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with no significant developments, and because the IPR challenges a broader set of claims than the district court case, institution would serve the AIA's goal of providing an efficient alternative to litigation.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of Patent 9,795,873 as unpatentable.