PTAB

IPR2025-00708

Activision Blizzard Inc v. Milestone Entertainment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Interaction Method for Gaming Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’336 patent describes systems and methods for enhancing player participation in a networked gaming environment. The core technology involves receiving operator-defined "mandated parameters" (e.g., target prize payout rates) and dynamically adjusting "variable parameters" (e.g., game structure, difficulty, or prizing) to achieve the mandated outcomes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kelly683 - Claims 1, 3-5, 12-13, 18-20, 22, 24-26, 29, 42, 44-47, and 50 are obvious over Kelly683 alone or in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kelly683 (Patent 8,172,683).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kelly683, which discloses a networked gaming system designed to optimize user enjoyment, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Kelly683’s system receives operator-defined "global payout percentage" and "win ratios," which Petitioner mapped directly to the ’336 patent’s "mandated parameters." To achieve these goals, Kelly683’s system automatically adjusts game structure (e.g., speed of objects, frequency of winning combinations) and prizing structure, which correspond to the claimed "variable parameters." Petitioner further asserted that Kelly683 discloses storing information on game events, generating presentations on display screens, performing game analytics by providing statistical information, and varying displays to the user as a necessary consequence of adjusting game parameters. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Kelly683’s teachings of skill-based outcomes, multiplayer tournaments, user registration via web pages, leaderboards, and non-cash prizes (e.g., points, tickets) meet the respective limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the various disclosed features of Kelly683, as they are presented as compatible options within a unified system for managing a networked gaming environment.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining Kelly683’s disclosed embodiments, as it would involve implementing known features within the disclosed system architecture to achieve the predictable result of a more comprehensive gaming management system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Walker and Schneier143 - Claims 1, 3-5, 12-13, 18-20, 22, 24-26, 29, 42, 44-47, and 50 are obvious over Walker in view of Schneier143.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walker (Application # 2004/0002369) and Schneier143 (Patent 5,970,143).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Walker discloses a gaming system that adjusts game parameters to ensure game results satisfy "predetermined criteria," which functions as the claimed "mandated parameters." Walker achieves this by modifying variable game parameters related to both game structure (e.g., difficulty, rules, number of rounds) and prizing to keep player outcomes within a desirable range, thereby maximizing player engagement. Petitioner argued that Walker teaches a controller that receives and stores these parameters, processes game events, performs analytics by calculating statistics like variance, and varies displays to the user. To the extent Walker does not explicitly teach certain limitations, Petitioner relied on Schneier143. Schneier143 was cited for its more detailed disclosure of a system for geographically dispersed tournaments, including features such as leaderboards (a "central scoreboard"), using credits (a non-cash prize) to advance to other levels, and limiting gameplay based on geographic location.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Walker and Schneier143 for several reasons. First, the references share the same inventors, making it natural for someone improving the Walker system to look to the inventors’ other work for compatible features. Second, the systems are structurally similar and address the same problem of enhancing player experience in networked games. Adding features from Schneier143—such as leaderboards and geographic limitations—would have been a recognized method to increase competition and enhance user experience in the system disclosed by Walker.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because their systems are highly compatible. The integration would involve applying known programming techniques to add the predictable functionalities taught by Schneier143 into the Walker framework, enhancing its capabilities without undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued that institution is appropriate because the primary prior art references asserted in the petition—Kelly683, Walker, and Schneier143—were not considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’336 patent. Therefore, the arguments and art are not substantially the same as those previously evaluated by the Office.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv) Arguments: Petitioner contended that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation is currently stayed, and there is no scheduled trial date, meaning an inter partes review (IPR) would conclude long before any potential district court trial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 18-20, 22, 24-26, 29, 42, 44-47, and 50 of the ’336 patent as unpatentable.