PTAB

IPR2023-00996

Sony Interactive EntertainMent LLC v. Quantum IMagIng LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Virtual Thematic Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’165 patent describes methods and systems for integrating real-time information into a virtual thematic environment, such as a video game. The system uses a client-server architecture to provide a user with access to both primary application content and secondary applications that utilize real-time data fetched from the world wide web.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pisanich - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 18 are obvious over Pisanich in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pisanich (WO 02/062436) and the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pisanich discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Pisanich describes a system for integrating real-time data (e.g., weather, air traffic) into a gaming application using a client-server architecture ("Game 112" on a player's computer and a "Game Data Server 108"). This maps to the claimed method of integrating real-time information into a virtual thematic environment.
      • Pisanich's game components, such as the rendering engine and player controls (joystick, keyboard), were alleged to constitute the claimed "graphics user interface (GUI) module."
      • The "quantum imaging environment (QIE) module" was mapped to Pisanich's Game Data Server, which receives, interprets, and provides content for different games and players.
      • Pisanich's "Rule-Based Logic Module" and "weather manager" were argued to meet the "thematic/publishing logic module" limitation.
      • The system's use of multiple "managers" or "engines" (e.g., audio engine, traffic manager) within the main game application was asserted to teach the claimed primary and secondary applications.
      • Pisanich's disclosure of requesting and receiving real-time data from external providers was mapped to the claim steps of sending requests for, obtaining, and downloading first and second real-time information.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the gaming system of Pisanich using well-known, conventional technologies, such as accessing data providers over the internet (World Wide Web) and employing standard client-server communication protocols. The motivation was to create a more realistic and dynamic gaming experience, which is the explicit goal of Pisanich.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Pisanich's system with standard web technologies, as these were common and predictable methods for networked applications at the time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over PSO Manual - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 18 are obvious over the PSO Manual in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phantasy Star Online Manual ("PSO Manual") (distributed publicly by March 2001) and the general knowledge of a POSITA.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the PSO Manual, describing the online multiplayer game Phantasy Star Online, teaches the claimed invention. The game operated on a client-server model (Sega Dreamcast console as client, "PSO server" as server) within a science-fiction "virtual thematic environment."
      • The game's on-screen displays, menus, and controller inputs were argued to be the "GUI module."
      • The "QIE module" was mapped to the game's overall online network structure and its "Word Select" feature, which interpreted and translated chat messages between players, manipulating content for use on different devices (e.g., consoles in different regions).
      • The game logic for the sci-fi world, including interactions with objects and enemies, was presented as the "thematic/publishing logic module."
      • The core game was the "primary application," while integrated features like the "Balloon Chat," "Symbol Chat," and "Simple Mail" systems were identified as the claimed "secondary applications."
      • The game's fundamental requirement to communicate with the server to show other players' positions and exchange messages in real-time was argued to teach the requesting, obtaining, and downloading of real-time information.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to use standard, ubiquitous internet and World Wide Web protocols to implement the networked features described in the PSO Manual. The motivation was simply to enable the core functionality of a commercial online multiplayer game as it was known in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Implementing a networked game using standard internet protocols was a well-understood and routine task, providing a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no express claim constructions are necessary. However, for the purpose of the petition, it demonstrated that the prior art meets the constructions adopted by the N.D. Cal. court in a related litigation involving patents from the same family (Barbaro Technologies, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.):
    • "graphics user interface (GUI) module": "software that provides a graphical display and processes user inputs to allow a user to interact with the graphical display."
    • "quantum imaging environment (QIE) module": "a software layer which receives and interprets content such that the content is manipulated so as to be accessible on different types of devices for use within the virtual thematic environment."
    • "virtual thematic environment": "a theme-based virtual computer interface."
  • Petitioner contended that its invalidity arguments hold true even under these constructions but reserved the right to propose different constructions in litigation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both §325(d) and §314(a) (Fintiv factors).
    • Under §325(d): The petition asserted that the prior art references (Pisanich and PSO Manual) are new and were never presented to the USPTO during the prosecution of the ’165 patent.
    • Under §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh against denial. The parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage, with a trial date set for April 2024 at the earliest, well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner noted that no stay has been requested, minimal investment has been made in the parallel case, and it has offered a stipulation to not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR is instituted, thereby minimizing overlap and conserving judicial resources.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 18 of the ’165 patent as unpatentable.