PTAB

IPR2025-00712

Activision Blizzard Inc v. Milestone Entertainment LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System for Dynamically Varying Game Play Parameters
Brief Description: The ’279 patent discloses a networked gaming system that dynamically adjusts game play to enhance player participation. The system uses a central server to modify "variable parameters" (e.g., game difficulty, prize availability) to achieve predetermined "mandated parameters" (e.g., overall prize payout rates, win ratios) across multiple remote player terminals.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kelly683 (Patent 8,172,683).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kelly683, which seeks to optimize user enjoyment and revenue in a networked gaming system, discloses nearly every limitation of the challenged claims. Kelly683 teaches a system that modifies variable parameters (e.g., game difficulty, prize costs) to achieve mandated parameters set by an operator, such as a "global payout percentage" and "win ratios." The only elements not explicitly taught are those related to storing and displaying player's club information and points.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify Kelly683 to include a well-known player tracking (player's club) program. The motivations were to increase player engagement, advance Kelly683's stated goal of increasing revenue, and improve the overall user experience, as player tracking was a common marketing and engagement tool in 2003.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Kelly683 already tracked player-specific information like credits. Integrating player club data was a predictable extension of this existing functionality, likely requiring only minor database modifications.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Walker (Application # 2004/0002369).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Walker discloses all limitations of the challenged claims, except for the specific limitation of claim 4 regarding a non-cash item being an image. Walker describes a gaming system that adjusts game parameters to ensure that game results satisfy "one or more predetermined criteria," such as maintaining a standard deviation of scores within a specific range. This directly corresponds to the ’279 patent’s use of variable and mandated parameters. Walker further discloses a player database that can store information for a "frequent gamer account," including player identifiers and points won through gameplay, thus teaching the claimed player's club functionality.
- Motivation to Combine: For this single-reference ground, Petitioner argued that Walker teaches its various disclosed features, such as dynamic game adjustment and player databases, as combinable options within its system, not as mutually exclusive alternatives. A POSITA implementing the system would have been motivated to combine these disclosed features to create the claimed invention.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Walker (Application # 2004/0002369) and Schneier143 (Patent 5,970,143).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed claim 4, which depends from claim 3 and requires that the player's club non-cash information includes an image. Petitioner asserted that while Walker provides the base system with player accounts and points, Schneier143 supplies the missing element. Schneier143, which shares inventors with Walker, discloses the use of non-cash credits to purchase in-game items, such as a "special weapon" or "access to a map," which would necessarily be represented to the user as an image within the game display.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the system taught in Walker would have naturally looked to other work by the same inventors. Combining Schneier143's teaching of in-game purchases with Walker's player point system would have been a logical step to enhance the user experience, allowing players to use earned points for tangible in-game advantages.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success, as the two systems are technologically similar and the modification involves implementing a known feature (in-game purchases) into the base system, a predictable programming task.

§ 325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued that institution is appropriate because the primary prior art references asserted in the petition (Kelly683, Walker, and Schneier143) and the corresponding invalidity arguments were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’279 patent.
§ 314(a) (Fintiv) Arguments: Petitioner contended that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court litigation between the parties is currently stayed, and no trial date is scheduled, making the Fintiv factors concerning trial proximity and judicial efficiency weigh heavily in favor of institution.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3-9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 of Patent 11,393,279 as unpatentable.