Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• 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 describes a computer-implemented method and system for a social video game. The system aims to overcome the perceived problem of "fixed" rewards in conventional games by providing variable or unexpected rewards to players after they satisfy a predetermined condition, such as defeating an enemy character, thereby increasing player interest and engagement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing a conditional reward and lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the idea into a patent-eligible invention. The argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.

  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner contended the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "providing a reward to a video game player from a player group reward box if a reward condition is met." This was framed as a longstanding method of organizing human activity, merely implemented on generic computer hardware. The claims recite broad, functional steps such as "storing," "allocating," and "determining" without providing any specific, technical details on how these functions are performed. Petitioner argued that this functional claiming preempts the abstract idea itself. The petition contrasted the ’580 patent with cases like McRO, asserting that unlike the specific, improvement-focused rules in McRO, the ’580 patent claims only a desired result without detailing the means for achieving it.

  • Alice Step 2 (No Inventive Concept): Petitioner asserted that the claims fail to provide an inventive concept. The core purported improvement described in the specification—providing "variable or unexpected" rewards to solve the problem of "fixed" rewards—is not actually captured by the claim language. The claims only recite a generic if-then conditional structure (if a condition is met, a reward is provided) and do not require the reward to be variable, random, or unexpected.

  • Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional. The recited hardware components—an "arithmetic processor," "memory," and "terminal devices"—are described as generic computer components performing their basic functions. Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner conceded during prosecution that the invention could be run on "known general-purpose computers." The combination of these generic elements to automate a fundamental economic practice does not supply an inventive concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility.

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

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that claims 1-10 are indefinite because they fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. This alleged indefiniteness stems from ambiguous language and a direct contradiction between the claims and the specification.

  • Ambiguous Claim Language: The petition identified several key terms and phrases as fatally ambiguous because the specification provides no guidance as to their meaning.

    • The term "reward providing condition" is used in the claims but is reportedly absent from the specification, leaving a POSITA unable to determine what events or criteria would satisfy this condition.
    • The phrase "based on match-up situations or match-up results" was also challenged as indefinite. The specification allegedly fails to define these terms, explain the difference between a "situation" and a "result," or describe how the determination is made, making it impossible to ascertain the claim's boundaries.

  • Contradiction with Specification: Petitioner highlighted a critical inconsistency regarding the term "exclusively." The independent claims require "reward boxes each associated exclusively with a respective one of said groups." However, Petitioner argued the specification teaches the opposite, stating that "two or more groups may be associated with one treasure box, or a single group may be associated with at least one treasure box." This direct contradiction between the broad claim language and the specific disclosure allegedly renders the scope of the claims fatally uncertain and indefinite.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of Patent 9,662,580 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §112(b).