Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 9,891,799
• Filed: November 13, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Supercell Oy
• Patent Owner(s): GREE, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Game Program, Computer Control Method, and Information Processing Apparatus
• Brief Description: The ’799 patent describes methods for controlling video games on touchscreen devices. The invention focuses on associating multiple virtual objects into a group and moving some or all of them in response to a user's touch operations, such as a swipe, while allegedly enabling more "complex movements" than the prior art.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 - Claims 1-20 are invalid as directed to an abstract idea.

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of associating game objects and moving one or more of them based on user input. The argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
  • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted the claims are not directed to a specific improvement in computer or video game technology but rather to generalized, result-oriented steps performed on conventional computer hardware. The claims recite functional steps like "associating," "determining," and "moving" without specifying any technical mechanism or algorithm for achieving these results. Petitioner contended that the patent itself admits the basic environment (touchscreen games) and functionalities (moving grouped objects) are well-known, positioning the claims as an abstract manipulation of data.
  • 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 claims merely recite generic and conventional computer components—such as a "processor," a "storage module," and an "input face"—to perform their ordinary functions. The ordered combination of these elements was argued to add nothing more than the routine implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer. The dependent claims were also characterized as adding only minor, conventional variations (e.g., excluding an object from movement) that do not supply an inventive concept.

Ground 2: Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) - Claims 1-20 are invalid as indefinite.

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner contended that claims 1-20 are indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine their scope with reasonable certainty. The argument centered on the ambiguity of several key terms that are used inconsistently within the claims and specification.
  • Ambiguous Terms: The primary terms challenged were "direction," "direction operation," and the phrase "moving... one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group." Petitioner argued "direction" is used to describe two different concepts: (1) a trajectory of movement (e.g., a swipe direction) and (2) an orientation or facing of a game object. This dual-meaning allegedly renders claims that use the term, particularly dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 where both meanings appear to be invoked, unclear.
  • Unclear Scope: The term "direction operation" was argued to be similarly indefinite because it is tied to the ambiguous term "direction." Further, Petitioner asserted that for independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation "moving... one or more" objects is unclear. The claims and specification allegedly provide no guidance on how to determine how many objects (from one to the total number in the group) or which specific objects would move, rendering the claim boundaries indeterminate.

Ground 3: Improper Dependent Claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) - Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 are invalid.

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that several dependent claims fail to comply with §112(d) because they do not further limit the subject matter of the independent claims upon which they depend. Instead, Petitioner asserted these claims improperly broaden the scope.
  • Broadening Limitations: For example, representative claim 2 recites excluding a "first object" from the "group of one or more... objects that is moved." Petitioner argued this does not narrow claim 1. If claim 1 is interpreted to cover the movement of a group of four objects, a scenario under claim 2 would involve moving only three objects (as one is excluded). Moving a smaller number of objects is a broader, not a narrower, condition. Similarly, claims reciting that an object is not moved due to an obstacle or being in a "no-move area" (e.g., claim 3) were argued to be broader than an independent claim where that object would have been moved.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "direction": Petitioner argued this term is indefinite as it is used to mean two disparate things: (1) a vector or trajectory of movement across a game field, and (2) a static orientation or "facing" of an object. This ambiguity is central to the §112(b) indefiniteness challenge, as a POSITA would not be able to discern which meaning applies or how to implement both simultaneously as required by certain claims.
• "direction operation": Following from the ambiguity of "direction," Petitioner contended that this term is also indefinite. It is unclear whether it refers to an operation that causes movement, an operation that changes object orientation, or both. The lack of antecedent basis for "the direction" allegedly indicated by this operation further contributes to the ambiguity.
• "one or more of the plurality of associated objects": Petitioner asserted this phrase is indefinite because the claims and specification fail to provide any rules or guidance for determining which or how many objects out of a group would move. This leaves the scope of the claims uncertain.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Purely Functional Claiming: A central technical contention was that the ’799 patent describes its purported invention in purely functional, result-oriented terms without disclosing any specific technical implementation. The patent allegedly fails to describe how to "associate" objects, how a processor "determines" a direction operation, or how the "moving processor" actually achieves the movement of objects, instead treating these core functions as black boxes. This lack of technical detail was a cornerstone of the §101 argument that the claims merely cover an abstract idea.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that the Board institute a Post Grant Review and cancel claims 1-20 of Patent 9,891,799 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.