Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 9,770,664
• Filed: June 22, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Online Shooting Game
• Brief Description: The ’664 patent relates to a method and system for online shooting games designed to increase convenience for players. The technology involves displaying a selectable identification range on a player's screen, automatically detecting enemy characters within that range, determining an attack priority among them, and designating one enemy as an "automatic tracking object" to assist with aiming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Petitioner did not rely on specific prior art references for an obviousness combination. Instead, the challenge was based on the argument that the claimed steps are abstract and represent "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activities. Petitioner cited the ’664 patent's own specification, which acknowledged prior art shooting games where players manually aim and shoot, as evidence of the conventional nature of the underlying activity.
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner's argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner argued that claims 1-19 are directed to the abstract idea of detecting and tracking an enemy in a shooting game. This concept was framed as a long-standing human activity, analogous to rules for a game, which can be performed mentally or manually. Petitioner contended the claims recite only generalized, functional steps (e.g., "selecting," "detecting," "determining") without providing a specific technological improvement or a concrete implementation. The claims automate a known, manual process, which is a hallmark of an abstract idea. By claiming the functional result without being limited to a particular means for achieving it, the claims impermissibly preempt the abstract idea itself.
  • 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 primary asserted inventive concept in the specification—"increasing convenience for shooting games based on skill levels of the players"—was not actually recited in any of the challenged claims. The claims merely require the use of generic, conventional computer components (e.g., "game server," "network," "database," "player terminal") to perform their ordinary functions in a well-understood environment. Petitioner asserted that the ordered combination of these conventional steps and components adds nothing inventive and amounts to no more than instructing a person to "apply" the abstract idea using a generic computer.
• Key Aspects:
  • A central pillar of the argument was the significant disconnect between the purported invention described in the specification (i.e., adapting game difficulty based on a player's "skill level" or "rank") and the actual scope of the claims, which contain no such limitations.
  • Petitioner also raised an independent challenge against claim 16 and its dependents, arguing the claim's "computer-readable recording medium" is not limited to being "non-transitory." Because the specification describes implementation via a "carrier wave," Petitioner contended the claim encompasses patent-ineligible transitory signals per se.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Petitioner's core technical contention was that the ’664 patent fails to disclose any specific technical improvement to computer functionality. The claims were characterized as being written in purely functional, result-oriented language that automates a process (aiming and shooting in a game) previously known and performed manually, which does not constitute a patent-eligible technical solution.
• Petitioner further contended that the hardware elements recited in the claims and described in the specification are generic and conventional. The system components, such as the "shooting game server" and "player terminals," serve only as a generic environment for executing the abstract idea, rather than being part of a specific, inventive technical implementation that improves the functioning of the computer itself.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of a Post Grant Review (PGR) and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 9,770,664 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.