Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01553
• Patent #: 10,076,708
• Filed: August 28, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Game Control Method, Game Server, and Program
• Brief Description: The ’708 patent relates to methods for acquiring virtual items in video games to heighten player interest. The technology involves a server-based system that displays a plurality of selectable, same-sized cells to a user, where items are randomly associated with the cells and at least one cell includes a character indicating the item's rarity value.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hawkins in view of Robbers - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Hawkins in view of Robbers.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hawkins (Patent 9,511,285) and Robbers (Application # 2009/0051114).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hawkins teaches a networked, server-based online game where a player acquires and uses virtual items (tokens such as "Heroes" or "Noble" cards). Hawkins allegedly discloses displaying these items as a plurality of same-sized cells (e.g., the "Your Heroes" bar) from which a player can select. The items are randomly provided from the player's selected deck, which is stored on a server and constitutes an "item information table pertaining to a user." To the extent Hawkins does not explicitly teach displaying a character that indicates rarity, Petitioner asserted Robbers supplies this element. Robbers teaches a trading card game where an "availability symbol" is displayed on the card graphic to indicate its rarity (e.g., rare or common).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Robbers's rarity symbol with Hawkins's game interface to provide the player with more information about available items at a glance, without needing to perform additional operations. Petitioner contended the combination is logical as both references are in the field of electronic games involving collectible items with varying rarity values.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have an expectation of success because implementing a graphical rarity indicator on a game item icon is a predictable application of known programming techniques that would yield foreseeable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over SCM in view of Stroffolino - Claims 1-3 are obvious over SCM in view of Stroffolino.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: SCM (a 2002 PC game manual for "Scrabble Complete") and Stroffolino (Patent 8,352,542).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that SCM, a manual for the electronic Scrabble game, teaches displaying a plurality of letter tiles (items) in a letter rack (a plurality of cells of the same size). These tiles are drawn randomly from a pool of available tiles (an item information table). Petitioner argued that the letter itself and its associated point value function as a "character which indicates a rarity value," as rarer letters like 'Q' have higher point values than 'E'. To the extent SCM does not explicitly detail the client-server architecture for its described online multiplayer mode, Petitioner argued Stroffolino supplies these teachings. Stroffolino describes a generic client-server system for interactive games (and specifically lists Scrabble), where a server maintains game state, receives selection requests from a client, and determines the next game state based on those requests.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine SCM with the explicit client-server architecture of Stroffolino to implement SCM's multiplayer functionality in a robust manner. Petitioner stated the motivations would include improving game fairness, preventing potential cheating, and centralizing game state management on a server, all of which are well-known benefits of a client-server model for multiplayer games.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that combining a known game like Scrabble with a standard client-server architecture as taught by Stroffolino would be a straightforward and predictable task for a person of ordinary skill in game development.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "acquirable item information": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to encompass a variety of information types pertaining to acquirable items, including but not limited to total count, acquisition count, item name, or an image. This position was based on the specification's examples and the prosecution history for the ’708 patent, where the applicant amended the claims to remove a more limiting definition, thereby broadening the term's intended scope.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. It asserted that the prior art and invalidity grounds raised in the IPR are distinct from those in the parallel district court litigation, eliminating concerns of inefficiency or conflicting decisions. Petitioner also contended that the district court trial date was likely to be delayed, particularly due to discovery challenges with Japan-based witnesses, which would weigh in favor of IPR institution and against denial based on a purportedly imminent trial date.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 of Patent 10,076,708 as unpatentable.