PTAB

IPR2025-00710

Activision Blizzard Inc v. Milestone Entertainment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Effecting User Experience in an Electronic Game Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’294 patent discloses a system for managing user experience in a multi-level electronic game using virtual currency. The system includes memory and a processor to handle gameplay where virtual currency is acquired through gameplay or cash purchase, is subject to multipliers, and can be converted into non-cash goods to permit advancement to other levels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Schneier143 - Claims 1-9, 13, and 16-20 are obvious over Schneier143

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schneier143 (Patent 5,970,143).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schneier143, which discloses a system for computer-generated game tournaments, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 is met because Schneier143 discloses a multi-level game system with game computers (user communication devices) having memory and a processor. Petitioner asserted that Schneier143’s "credits" function as the claimed "virtual money," as they can be acquired through gameplay (achieving performance levels) or cash purchase. The system discloses applying a multiplier via credit discounts for bulk purchases or based on player status (e.g., a "five-star MORTAL KOMBAT player" receives a 10% discount). These credits can be converted into non-cash goods, such as access to special weapons or restricted game stages, to permit advancement. Schneier143 also enforces a limit on gameplay, as play is disabled when a user's credits are exhausted. Finally, it discloses storing account information (credits, reward points, player ratings) that increases and decreases through the user experience.
    • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground under 35 U.S.C. §103, Petitioner asserted that no motivation finding is required. However, Petitioner argued that Schneier143 itself teaches that its various disclosed features are options that can be combined, which would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to assemble the claimed invention from the reference’s own teachings.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Schneier143 in view of Okita - Claims 1-9, 13, and 16-20 are obvious over Schneier143 in view of Okita

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schneier143 (Patent 5,970,143) and Okita (Application # 2003/0078102).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in the event that Schneier143’s "credits" are not construed as "virtual money." Petitioner argued that Okita explicitly remedies any alleged deficiency by teaching a "virtual money conversion unit" that converts "pseudo-values" (analogous to Schneier143’s credits) into virtual money that is portable across different games and tournaments. Okita discloses that this virtual money can be acquired through gameplay or by converting real money at a prescribed rate, satisfying the purchase and multiplier limitations. The virtual money is then used to pay game fees, thereby enforcing a limit on gameplay when funds are depleted.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Okita's virtual money conversion functionality with Schneier143’s tournament system to enhance player engagement and user experience. Okita expressly teaches that making in-game currency portable creates "feelings of realism and tension" and encourages continued play. Petitioner contended that applying this known benefit to Schneier143's established gaming system was a simple and logical improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. Both systems utilize a similar client-server architecture (game computers and a central server), making the integration of Okita’s currency management server into Schneier143’s framework a predictable combination of known technologies to achieve a known benefit.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is inappropriate. Under §325(d), institution is proper because the asserted prior art, Schneier143 and Okita, was never presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution.
  • Under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, denial is unwarranted because the parallel district court litigation is currently stayed and no trial date is scheduled, eliminating concerns of inefficiency or conflicting decisions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9, 13, and 16-20 of the ’294 patent as unpatentable.