PTAB

IPR2025-00711

Activision Blizzard Inc v. Milestone Entertainment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Electronic Game Play
  • Brief Description: The ’164 patent describes a networked gaming system employing a "mandated-parameters method." A game provider sets system-wide goals, such as prize payout rates, which the system achieves by dynamically modifying "variable parameters" of the game or prizing structure to enhance player participation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kelly683 - Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 19, 23-24, and 29 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 discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Kelly683 teaches a networked gaming system where an operator can set mandated parameters like a "global payout percentage" and "win ratios." The system achieves these parameters by modifying variable parameters of the game structure (e.g., adjusting game difficulty, speed of objects, duration of games) and the prizing structure (e.g., adjusting prize costs). Kelly683 also discloses using virtual money (game credits), tracking player accounts, and using game analytics to optimize the system.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation was framed as combining the various disclosed embodiments within Kelly683 itself. For elements not explicitly linked, such as consolidating server functions, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to do so for known benefits like efficiency and redundancy, which Kelly683 itself suggests.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the teachings within Kelly683, as it describes these features as compatible options within its gaming system framework.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kelly683 and Paulsen - Claims 2 and 4 are obvious over Kelly683 in view of Paulsen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kelly683 (Patent 8,172,683) and Paulsen (Application # 2005/0153768).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 1 to address the specific limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4, which require the server to include "player's club information" and for that information to include "non-cash amounts." While Kelly683 discloses player accounts, Paulsen was introduced to explicitly teach formal player tracking systems, loyalty programs, and club cards used to maintain player interest in casinos. Paulsen discloses tracking player activity and awarding non-cash points or "comps."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Paulsen's established player tracking system with the gaming system of Kelly683 to achieve Kelly683's stated goal of increasing player engagement and revenue. Paulsen's loyalty incentives were described as a well-known marketing method for achieving these exact objectives in the gaming industry.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success because both references already track player-specific data. Integrating Paulsen's detailed loyalty information into Kelly683's existing player account structure was presented as a straightforward database modification with predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Walker and Schneier143 - Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 19, 23-24, and 29 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 satisfy "predetermined criteria" (the ’164 patent's mandated parameters) to maximize player retention. Walker achieves this by modifying game structure (e.g., number of lives, speed) and prizing structure (e.g., prize awarded). Petitioner contended the only element not expressly disclosed in Walker is the use of virtual currency during gameplay. Schneier143, which shares inventors with Walker, was cited to supply this missing element, disclosing that credits can be earned or used to purchase items (e.g., extra lives, special weapons) during a game.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to improve the system in Walker would have naturally looked to other patents from the same inventors for compatible features. Combining Schneier143's in-game credit system would have been a natural extension of Walker's system to further enhance the user experience and prevent player frustration, a goal of Walker.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The systems of Walker and Schneier143 have substantially similar structures and functions, and share the same inventors, suggesting high compatibility. Petitioner argued that implementing the detailed credit functionality from Schneier143 into Walker would be a predictable modification involving known programming techniques.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary prior art references (Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143) and the asserted combinations were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
  • Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv is inapplicable because the parallel district court litigation is currently stayed and no trial date is scheduled.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 19, 23-24, and 29 as unpatentable.