PTAB

IPR2021-00500

Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Game Control Method, Server Device, Game System, And Computer-Readable Recording Medium
  • Brief Description: The ’517 patent is directed to team-based online battle games. The disclosed invention is an "automatic formation function" where a server creates a new team ("group") from "independent players" (those not currently on a team) once a "setting condition," such as reaching a predetermined number of waiting players, is satisfied.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lin, LoL Game Info, and Dota 2 Guide - Claims 1-5 and 9-11 are obvious over Lin in view of LoL Game Info and Dota 2 Guide.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lin (Application # 2014/0025732), LoL Game Info (archived website), and Dota 2 Guide (archived website).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the independent claims (1, 9, 10, 11) recite a three-step method: a server device (1) determines if a parameter for independent players satisfies a setting condition, (2) creates a new group if the condition is met, and (3) transmits a message to the new group members. Petitioner asserted that Lin taught a server architecture for the popular Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (“MOBA”) game League of Legends (“LoL”) and explicitly directed a POSA to the official LoL website for implementation details. The LoL Game Info reference, taken from that website, allegedly taught the claimed method. It described how solo ("independent") players enter a matchmaking queue where a server groups them based on a skill parameter (a modified Elo rating). When the number of players of comparable skill reaches the required team size (e.g., five for a 5v5 match), this "setting condition" is met, and the server forms a team. LoL Game Info further taught that players then "receive a message prompting you to enter champion select," satisfying the notification step. Petitioner contended that the Dota 2 Guide, describing the competing game Dota 2, disclosed a virtually identical matchmaking system, reinforcing that these features were conventional solutions in the art.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA), guided by Lin’s explicit citation, would have naturally consulted LoL Game Info on the LoL website to implement the system Lin described. A POSA developing a MOBA would have also been motivated to analyze other popular games like Dota 2 to incorporate established, successful features and create a competitive product. The motivation was to use known, predictable solutions for common game design challenges like matchmaking.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these well-established and functionally similar features from the two most popular games in the genre would have been a predictable and straightforward task for a POSA, with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Core Combination plus Disbandment Art - Claims 6-8 are obvious over the combination of Lin, LoL Game Info, and Dota 2 Guide, further in view of LoL Patch 3.5 Notes and/or Win/Loss/Abandon Feedback.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combination from Ground 1, plus LoL Patch 3.5 Notes (archived website) and Win/Loss/Abandon Feedback (archived website).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 6, which adds limitations for determining a group's "activity status" and disbanding it if found to be in an "inactive state," was taught by multiple common game scenarios disclosed in the prior art. The references taught several criteria for determining a team was inactive:
      • Player Inactivity (AFK): LoL Patch 3.5 Notes and Dota 2 Guide disclosed features where a newly formed team was disbanded if a player failed to accept the match or select a character within a set time. This failure was a criterion for determining the team was inactive.
      • Game Completion: LoL Game Info and the Dota 2 Guide showed that match-made teams were automatically disbanded after a game ended (via victory or defeat), as their purpose was fulfilled and they were no longer in an active battle.
      • Surrender or Abandonment: LoL Game Info described a "surrender" feature allowing a team to vote to end a match, thereby becoming inactive and disbanding. Similarly, the Win/Loss/Abandon Feedback forum for Dota 2 explained how a player abandoning a match could make it "safe to leave" for others, leading to the team's disbandment.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing a MOBA based on Lin and LoL Game Info would have been motivated to include these well-known inactivity detection and team disbandment features. Petitioner asserted these features were essential for game quality management, reducing player frustration with AFK teammates, and providing a clear beginning and end to game sessions.
    • Expectation of Success: These features were widely implemented and publicly documented for the leading games in the field. A POSA would have found it routine to incorporate these known techniques with a high likelihood of success.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of Patent 9,539,517 as unpatentable.