Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2018-00047
• Patent #: 9,770,659
• Filed: March 8, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Storage Medium Storing Game Program, Game Processing Method, And Information Processing Apparatus
• Brief Description: The ’659 patent relates to a method and system for controlling the display of a video game in which two characters battle. The invention is based on receiving a user's selection of "panels" representing characters and subsequently disposing those panels in designated "divisions" on a game display screen.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §101 for Reciting Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack any inventive concept, failing both steps of the test established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "controlling a video game display based on a received selection of panel information." The claims recite purely functional steps—receiving a selection, disposing panels based on the selection, and controlling the game display—without providing any specific technical implementation or improvement to computer functionality. Petitioner contended that the claims, written in non-specific functional terms, cover any system that achieves these results, which is a hallmark of an abstract idea. The functions themselves were argued to be well-known, as acknowledged in the patent’s background discussion of prior art card games.
  • Alice Step 2 (Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued the claims fail to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application because they lack an inventive concept. The specification’s purported improvement, a "high visual effect," is not recited in the independent claims. Instead, the claims merely require the use of generic, conventional computer components (e.g., "server apparatus," "user terminal," "control unit," "display screen") to perform their ordinary functions. Petitioner stated that these elements, taken individually or as an ordered combination, do not add anything inventive. The dependent claims were also characterized as adding only conventional game concepts (e.g., panels given based on game progress, displaying text) or insignificant post-solution activity, which is insufficient to confer patent eligibility.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for Lack of Written Description

• Core Argument: Petitioner contended that the specification fails to provide an adequate written description to demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Key limitations in the claims were alleged to have no corresponding disclosure.
  • User Selection vs. Automated Selection: Petitioner highlighted a critical discrepancy between the claims and the specification. The claims recite a "panel selection function of receiving a selection by the first user." However, the specification exclusively describes an automated process where a "panel selection section" (element 222) performs the selection from databases. There is no disclosure of a user making a selection, an interface for doing so, or a function for "receiving" such a user-driven selection.
  • "Target Division" and "Animation": Petitioner further argued that the specification provides no support for the claim limitation requiring a panel to be disposed in a "target division" when it is "allowed" to be so disposed. The specification does not use the term "target division" or "division" at all, instead using the term "frames" without correlating it to "divisions." The concepts of a "target" location or a disposition being "allowed" are entirely absent. Similarly, the claim limitation of a "panel indicating the character is displayed as an animation" was argued to lack support, as the only mention of "animation" in the specification relates to a "movie" displaying consecutive still images of an entire panel, not an animation of a character.

Ground 3: Claims 1-15 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as Indefinite

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that because the specification lacks disclosure for essential claim limitations, the claims are ambiguous and fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
  • Ambiguity from Lack of Support: The failure of the specification to describe a user-based panel selection, a "target division," or the conditions under which a panel is "allowed" to be disposed renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. A skilled artisan reading the claims and specification would not understand how to determine infringement because the core claimed concepts are not described.
  • Incoherent Claim Language: Petitioner asserted that the alternative recitation in claim 1—"the panel layout function...receives an instruction that the panel is disposed in the target division"—is incoherent. It is unclear whether this is an instruction for a future action (to dispose the panel) or a notification that an action has already occurred. This ambiguity, compounded by the lack of any disclosure regarding such an "instruction," makes the scope of the claim impossible to ascertain. The claims were therefore argued to be vague and unclear, rendering them invalid as indefinite.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of a Post Grant Review (PGR) for claims 1-15 of the ’659 patent and the cancellation of all challenged claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101, §112(a), and §112(b).