PTAB

IPR2024-00209

PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd v. Flip Phone Games Inc

Title: Methods and Systems for Providing In-Game Hot Spots
Brief Description: The ’662 patent is directed to systems and methods for providing dynamically updated "hot spots" within video games on mobile devices. The patent describes these hot spots as in-game locations that, when activated by a player, trigger the display of hidden content, such as advertisements, which are downloaded from a server.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ho (WO 2008/008038) and Aoki (Application # 2002/0120589).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ho taught the core features of the ’662 patent, including a mobile video game with server-updated "interactive information elements" (i.e., hot spots) that trigger hidden content like advertisements upon user engagement. Petitioner asserted that Aoki supplied the missing teaching of using specific coordinate information (X and Y coordinates) downloaded from a server to determine the precise placement location for such in-game advertisements on objects like placards.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references because Ho expressly stated a goal of incorporating updateable advertisements into games without major code revisions. Since Ho only described element placement at a high level (e.g., at a "juncture in the game"), a POSITA would have looked to a known technique like that in Aoki, which disclosed a specific system for positioning server-provided advertisements using coordinate data.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a well-known and straightforward technique (Aoki's coordinate-based placement) to improve Ho's system for its stated and intended purpose.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Jiau (WO 2000/070489) and Aoki (Application # 2002/0120589).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Jiau disclosed a system with server-provided "hotspots" and "hotspaces" in a virtual world that trigger promotional content (e.g., a pop-up ad) upon user interaction. Jiau's hotspots were associated with non-promotional objects (e.g., a building), and its system was designed for changeable, non-predefined content fetched from a server. As in Ground 1, Aoki was cited for its teaching of using specific X and Y coordinate data from a server to place advertisements.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine these references because Jiau taught a changeable, server-based virtual world and disclosed server file formats defining an object's initial position using coordinate information. To robustly implement this dynamic placement, a POSITA would apply the well-known method taught by Aoki for positioning server-provided elements, thereby allowing Jiau's changeable elements to be dynamically placed at optimal locations.
- Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected, as the combination involved integrating a standard positioning technique (Aoki) into a system (Jiau) that was explicitly designed to accommodate dynamic, server-provided content.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ho (WO 2008/008038) and Kim (Patent 6,928,414).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Ho as the primary reference, similar to Ground 1. The incremental teaching was supplied by Kim, which disclosed a client-server game system where the server transfers coordinate information to the client to control the placement of in-game elements and advertisements. For example, Kim taught that an advertisement item could appear at the spot where a monster, which appears at a "certain place and certain time," is defeated.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1; Ho established the goal of dynamic advertising but lacked specific placement details. Kim provided a direct, known solution by teaching a server-driven system that uses coordinate and time data to locate in-game elements and their associated advertisements, a technique directly applicable to the elements in Ho's system.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have recognized that the interactive elements in Ho (e.g., a defeatable "hamburger monster" that triggers an ad) were analogous to those in Kim (a defeatable monster that triggers an ad), making the integration of Kim's coordinate-based placement system into Ho's framework straightforward and predictable.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Jiau (WO 2000/070489) and Kim (Patent 6,928,414).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground combined the teachings of Jiau (dynamic virtual world with hotspots, as in Ground 2) with the teachings of Kim (server-provided coordinate data for element placement, as in Ground 3). Petitioner argued that Jiau provided the basic framework of a changeable world with hotspots, while Kim provided the specific mechanism for positioning Jiau's changeable objects using coordinate information from a server.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to Ground 2. Jiau's system of changeable, non-predefined objects required a method for their placement. Kim provided a known and compatible technique where a server explicitly transfers coordinate data to a client for positioning game objects and advertisements, which would allow Jiau's dynamic elements to be placed appropriately.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because the combination involved applying Kim's conventional server-driven coordinate placement method to Jiau's system, which was inherently designed to accommodate such dynamic, server-provided content.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate for two primary reasons.
Under §314(a), Petitioner provided a stipulation that if the Board institutes the IPR, Petitioner will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any ground that was raised or could have reasonably been raised in the petition.
Under §325(d), Petitioner asserted that the primary references (Ho, Jiau, Aoki, and Kim) were neither cited nor considered during the original prosecution of the ’662 patent. Petitioner argued the references are not cumulative because they disclose the key limitation of "displaying an object at the designated non-promotional location," which the Examiner had previously found missing from the prior art of record.

Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-20 of the ’662 patent as unpatentable.