Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• 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 describes a system and method for controlling the display of a video game in which two characters battle. The invention is directed to a process involving the selection of "panels" associated with characters and disposing them in "divisions" on a game screen to create what the patent calls a "high visual effect."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims fail the two-step framework established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.
  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "controlling a video game display based on a received selection of panel information." The petition contended that the claims, written in purely functional language, recite generalized steps (receiving a panel selection, disposing the panel, controlling the display) to be performed on a generic computer. Petitioner argued this is merely an attempt to claim ownership of a result without disclosing any specific, concrete means for achieving it. The claimed functions were described as well-known, and the specification allegedly describes system components as functional black boxes without providing technical improvements to computer or video game technology.
  • Alice Step 2 (Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The petition asserted that the specification's purported improvement—a "high visual effect"—is not captured in the independent claims. The claims allegedly recite only generic and conventional computer components ("server apparatus," "user terminal," "data storage unit") performing their ordinary functions. Petitioner contended that the recited functions are routine computer tasks: receiving user input, executing a command based on that input, and displaying results on a screen. The dependent claims were argued to add only conventional gaming concepts (e.g., varying panel display based on game progress or turn order) rather than any inventive technological solution.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of adequate written description.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, highlighting several critical mismatches between the claim language and the specification’s disclosure.
  • User Selection vs. System Selection: The claims recite a "panel selection function of receiving a selection by the first user." Petitioner argued the specification contradicts this by only describing a "panel selection section" that itself selects panels from a database, with no disclosure of a user making a selection or an interface for receiving such a selection.
  • "Target Division": The claims require disposing a panel in a "target division" and refer to the panel being "allowed" to be disposed there. Petitioner asserted that the specification provides no antecedent basis for these terms, as it never uses the word "division" (using "frame" instead) or "target," and fails to explain how a "target division" would be determined or what rules would "allow" for panel disposition.
  • "Animation": The claims recite a "panel indicating the character is displayed as an animation." Petitioner argued the specification's only reference to animation is a "movie" that "displays a plurality of still images consecutively," which it contended is distinct from animating a character as claimed. The petition asserted that this lack of disclosure for key limitations means the specification does not support the full scope of the claims.

Ground 3: Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the same failures in written description render the claims indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the invention.
  • Unclear Terminology: Because the specification allegedly fails to describe concepts like "receiving a selection by the first user," "target division," or what "allowed" means in context, a POSA would not understand the scope of these limitations.
  • Incoherent Language: Petitioner asserted that the claim recitation that "the panel layout function...or receives an instruction that the panel is disposed in the target division" is incoherent. It is unclear whether this "instruction" is a command to dispose the panel or a notification that the panel has been disposed, and there is no disclosure of where such an instruction would originate or how it would be received.
  • Ambiguous Scope: The lack of clarity regarding when and how a character is "displayed as an animation" further obscures the claim scope. Petitioner argued that these ambiguities and inconsistencies between the claims and the specification make it impossible for the public to determine what is and is not covered by the patent.

4. Relief Requested

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