Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2018-00036
• Patent #: 9,662,580
• Filed: February 27, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Video Game in which Groups of Players Earn Reward Boxes
• Brief Description: The ’580 patent discloses a social video game system designed to provide variable or unexpected rewards to players. The system addresses the perceived problem of "fixed" rewards in conventional games by implementing a system where groups of players can earn "reward boxes" with variable contents after satisfying a predetermined condition, such as defeating an enemy character in a match-up.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - Claims 1-10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101

• Prior Art Relied Upon: None. This ground is based on patent eligibility under §101.
• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept, failing both steps of the Alice test.
  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing a reward to a video game player from a player group's reward box if a reward condition is met. This was characterized as a longstanding method of organizing human activity, merely implemented in a gaming context on a generic computer. The claims were described as reciting functional, result-oriented steps (e.g., "storing," "allocating," "determining") without disclosing a specific, technological means for achieving the result. Petitioner contended the claims do not offer any improvement to computer functionality or video game technology itself.
  • Alice Step 2 (Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The specification's purported improvement over the prior art—providing "variable or unexpected" rewards to solve the problem of "fixed" rewards—is not captured by the claims. The claims only recite an if-then conditional (if a condition is met, a reward is provided) and do not exclude fixed reward allocations or require variability. Furthermore, all recited hardware components (e.g., "arithmetic processor," "memory," "terminal devices") were argued to be generic, conventional components performing their well-understood, routine functions. The ordered combination of these conventional steps was asserted to add nothing inventive.

Ground 2: Indefiniteness - Claims 1-10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: None. This ground is based on indefiniteness under §112(b).
• Core Argument: Petitioner argued the claims are indefinite because key limitations are not described with sufficient clarity in the specification, preventing a person of ordinary skill in the art from discerning the scope of the claimed invention.
  • Unclear Terminology: The claim phrase "determining whether the reward providing condition is met based on match-up situations or match-up results" was identified as a primary source of indefiniteness.
  • Lack of Specification Support: Petitioner contended the specification provides no antecedent basis or clear definition for the term "reward providing condition." It is also unclear what distinguishes a "match-up situation" from a "match-up result," whether they are mutually exclusive, or how they are evaluated. This lack of disclosure was argued to render the claim boundaries vague and unclear, failing to notify the public of what would constitute infringement.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of a Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’580 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(b).