Visit BannerWitcoff.com

U.S. Patent No. RE41,331: Playing an interactive real-time card selection game over a network
Issued May 11, 2010, to Thwartpoker, Inc.


Summary:

The RE41,331 patent describes a method for playing interactive, computerized card games. The cards are dealt by a computer and the betting is generated by the computer software. The program is written to have a time limit on betting. Each player who wants to play uses a computer to connect to the network where they can join up with other human players or stick to playing computer players. The network records the player’s name, IP address, and requested playing session.  The games continue until all player either leave, lose all of their money, or win the game.

Abstract:

A method of playing an interactive, computerized, multi-player card game in which desired cards are selected by players, some of which may be virtual players generated by the game's software. Each real player uses a computer or similar device that is connected to a network. Virtual player card selection and betting is controlled by computer software. After each player has selected a card in a round, computer software determines what card each player is dealt. Null cards having no value in the scoring are dealt when there is a conflict in card selection or when a player fails to select a card within a time limit. The games follow the rules of poker.

Illustrative Claim:

1. In a communications network, a method for playing an interactive, network-based card game comprising: a) establishing a connection between at least one client software program for a game of cards, said client software program running on a player's computer connected to a network, and a server software program for the game, said server software program running on a computer acting as a server and connected to the network, said connection enabling the player to join a playing session populated with other players selected from a group consisting of real and virtual players, the real players using separate computers connected to the network, each computer running another instance of the client software program, each instance of client software connected to the server software, and the virtual players generated and controlled by the game's server software, said game including the following steps: i) selecting at the player's computer a card from a deck of playing cards, said deck of cards the same for all players in the playing session; ii) communicating the identity of said card to the dealer controlled by the server software; iii) receiving at the player's computer a message from the server software identifying a card from the dealer, said card selected by the dealer from the group consisting of: A) the player's selected card; and B) a null card; iv) displaying at the player's computer the card dealt to that player; v) displaying at the player's computer any face-up cards that have been distributed to other players; vi) communicating a bet to the server software during the betting rounds; vii) receiving at the player's computer software notification of bets made by other players via a message from the server software; viii) repeating steps i--vii until a predetermined number of cards are delivered to each player and betting is concluded; ix) identifying the player with the best hand of cards according to predetermined rules of play via a message from the server software; x) receiving a score based on the player's hand at the player's computer via a message from the server software, said score calculated according to predetermined rules of play; xi) repeating steps i--x until the playing session ends; and b) closing the connection between the player's client software program and the server software to terminate session play.


An order was issued by a district court judge in the Northern District of California on May 30, 2013, dismissing the case with prejudice after the parties came to an outside settlement.  Pecover and Owens v. Electronic Arts, Inc. was a class action suit initially filed claiming that EA had a monopoly on all football games due to its exclusive licenses with the NFL, NCAA, and Arena Football League (AFL).  The court's modification of the settlement's Plan of Allocation granted the lead class members $5,000, their attorneys received fees in the amount of $7.29 million, as well as a $2 million dollar reimbursement for costs.  Furthermore, the order granted class members who filed a valid claim form no later than May 15, 2013, the right to up to $162.96.  The settlement also stipulated that EA is unable to renew its NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co. football licenses for a period of five years after their expiration in 2014.  EA is also barred from obtaining exclusive AFL licenses for a period of five years from the date of the order.  However, EA's exclusive license with the NFL—the basis of its massively successful Madden NFL series—was not affected.


A full copy of the order is available online.

U.S. Patent No. 7,086,946: Game method using network, server executing the game method, and storage medium storing program executing the game method
Issued Aug. 8, 2006, to Aruze Co., Ltd.


Summary:

The ‘946 patent provides a way to identify opposing player’s skill levels during online play. The invention calls for using facial recognition which is directly tied to a player’s skill. Before a match the player submits a facial picture which will be shown to his opponent. The picture will change based on the outcome of the game. This way a player is identified not only by his username but also by a picture. The invention offers a quick scan method of determining an opponent’s skill level since all the player has to do is glance at the picture and he will know the level of his opponent.

Abstract:

On a server, face image is registered and updated according to the player's skill-level. Specifically, as personal information, not only registration of user's address, name, or pen name, but also face information is registered and changed according to the game result. Therefore, this permits a quick visual recognition of the previous game result. As the result, when performing a battle game between terminals, the player can understand the competitor's skill-level.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A game method with which a game player connects to a server by using a terminal and plays a game on the server, the method including the steps of: before starting the game on the server, making the game player register a face image information as personal information; changing the face image information according to the game result; and using the changed face image information as face information of the next game.

Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Case No: 3-09-cv-05990
           
This case was recently remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals after the Court of Appeals held that the grant of summary judgment was in error and that further proceedings were necessary.  The case arises from Plaintiff Ryan Hart (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) alleging that Electronics Arts (EA) NCAA Football series of games violated his right of publicity by appropriating his likeness in NCAA Football 2004, 2005, and 2006.  Hart was a successful quarterback for Rutgers University from 2002 through the 2005 season, taking his team to their first Bowl game since 1978.  The case was originally dismissed after EA filed a motion for summary judgment; the district court held that EA NCAA games were protected under the First Amendment.

The Third Circuit, in determining that the District Court erred conducted a balancing test when coming to its decision to decide whether First Amendment rights superseded the right of publicity.  In conducting this analysis, the court looked to three tests: the predominant use test, the Rogers test, and the transformative use test.  The predominant use test maintains that, "If a product is being sold that predominantly exploits the commercial value of an individual's identity, that product should be held to violate the right of publicity and not be protected by the First Amendment."  The court did not, however, that if the predominant purpose is to comment on or about a celebrity (such as parody) more weight would be given to the expressive values.  The court ultimately declined this test stating that at best is was very subjective, but at worst is was arbitrary forcing judges to not only be, "impartial jurists" but also, "discerning art critics."  The court then turned to the Rogers Test from Rogers v. Grimaldi.  This test relies on a theory of trademark law, specifically false endorsement, and it holds that the use of celebrity likeness is acceptable as long as it is not simply, "a disguised commercial advertisement for the sale of goods and services".  The court also rejected this test stating that it would be unwise to determine that Hart was unable to retain his right of publicity because his likeness was being used in the very same arena from which it was derived.  The court reasoned that it made sense that any use of Hart's likeness would be in a football setting since that is where his celebrity came from.  After rejecting the predominant use and Rogers test, the court adopted the transformative use test.  This test requires that an artist adopting the likeness of another must contribute something more than a "merely trivial" variation to be protected under the First Amendment.  However, the threshold to meet this test is rather low, a work is transformative if it adds "new expression".  That alone is sufficient to fall within the boundaries of the transformative use test.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals decided that NCAA Football was not sufficiently transformative to attain First Amendment protection because it adds nothing creative to Hart's likeness.  EA argued that all player avatars could be customized, therefore satisfying the transformation requirement.  However, the court held that the main appeal of Hart's likeness was maintaining it as is so that fans could play as him.  Furthermore, any customization was not a transformation of Hart's likeness allowing the use, but was instead a new creative product that caused the use to cease to exist. 

This case is still pending in the District Court of New Jersey after the Third Circuit's opinion was filed on May 21, 2013.  If, after further proceedings, the District Court determines that Hart's right to publicity was affected, it could have a substantial effect on EA NCAA series.  Because NCAA athletes cannot receive compensation that in any way relates to their athleticism, it is unlikely that players would sign away their likenesses to EA as there is little benefit to be gained.  This would make the game series a potentially huge liability for the company, putting them in a position that would require they either risk litigation or lose the distinctiveness of the athletes that fans of the series purchase the game for.

We will continue to monitor this case and provide any relevant updates as they become available.
Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche, et. al.
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Case No. 2:05-CV-0610-DAE-VCF, Filed May 16, 2005

This 2005 case is still pending in the Nevada District Court; it's scheduled for a hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on July 24, 2013. 

Defendants' filed the motion to have the case dismissed on the merits on February 27, 2013.  This motion was filed after Defendants produced database server information to Plaintiffs regarding their online gambling business—Plaintiffs claim this information is necessary to determine wagers made and the IP addresses for their clients to determine if any were located in the United States.  Defendants had already moved for summary judgment, but were denied by a magistrate judge until this information was produced.  After satisfying the magistrate judge's order, Defendants filed this new motion for summary judgment. 

In response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Defer or Deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Allow Time to Complete Discovery as well as a Preliminary Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion on April 12, 2013.  Plaintiffs claim two bases for the denial of the motion for summary judgment: 1) they have not had the opportunity to properly perform substantial discovery which has prevented a proper response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and 2) based on the incomplete discovery records received, Plaintiff alleges that there are an estimated 34,000 records of U.S.-based players which lends itself to the possibility that the method patent was infringed.  Although this case was initially filed in May of 2005, little to no discovery has been completed due to the court's denial of early discovery requests and Defendants' alleged reticence in providing requested discovery materials.  Plaintiffs therefore allege that they have not had the opportunity to make a proper inquiry to defend against Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.  They go on to assert that, even without complete data, there is compelling evidence to show that patent infringement was taking place in the United States barring an award of summary judgment. 

On May 17, 2013, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response.  They contend that they have produced the discovery materials ordered by the court and should therefore be allowed to move for dismissal.  Defendants go further stating that, even if they have not properly produced the server data in question, as a matter of law Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed.  Defendants argue that in order to successfully make an infringement claim on a method patent, all steps must have taken place in the United States.  Since Plaintiff concedes that Defendants' servers are located in Costa Rica, Defendants' argue that not all steps of infringement have taken place in the United States.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim is invalid and should be dismissed.

We will continue to monitor this case and provide any updates as they become available.

 


Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Case No. 3:12-cv-01971-NC, Filed April 20, 2012

This case is still ongoing and has since been transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California as of April 20, 2012. Digital Reg's claims against AVG Technologies regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,389,541 have been dismissed with prejudice as have AVG's counterclaims. Valve Corporation has also had all claims of infringement and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice as of May 23, 2013.

The most recent developments in the case regard discovery disputes between Digital Reg and Adobe as well as EA. Digital Reg is seeking royalties for the infringed patents, and requests EA's financial information regarding their Origin platform for distributing online games. EA maintains that Origin is a free-to-use platform, and since EA's computer games are not allegedly infringing, the financial information regarding Origin would have only marginal relevance.

The case has also been docketed for trial beginning on January 13, 2014, with jury selection to take place on January 6, 2014. We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates regarding any major developments.
Yesterday there was an Op-Ed in the New York Times presenting the opinion that District Court Judges should use already existing portions of the law more often to shift fees in patent troll litigation.  The writers point out that in 3000 cases analyzed, in only 20 of them were fees shifted to the plaintiff.  Fee shifting refers to when the court requires the Plaintiff  to pay all or some of the Defendant's legal fees to defend the lawsuit in the first place.  Its an interesting, and quick, read.  But what makes it REALLY interesting is that it was penned by Judge Randall Rader, Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears all patent lawsuit appeals), along with two others.  If you are a defendant that appeals a patent case and part of your appeal is fee shifting, cross your fingers that Judge Rader is on your panel.  I also wonder how many District Court judges will see the op-ed and give it any consideration in future fee shifting analyses.

Read the full Op-Ed here.

U.S. Patent No. 6,733,383: Systems and methods for simulating game state changes responsive to an interrupt condition
Issued May 11, 2004, to EA


Summary:

The ‘383 patent provides a system in a racing game where the player can simulate either the whole race or a portion of the race. If a player simulates a race (or only a portion of it) the game will calculate the probability of certain events and, using real-world statistics, can simulate the most realist race possible. The computer randomly generates common racing events such as crashes, spinouts, and debris on the track. Each of the computer-controlled drivers have their own attributes (based on the real-life racers they are modeled after) which ensures that each car acts in its own way during the race. Thus, each race will be different depending on what situations arise. A player has the option of simulating the whole race before the race begins, but he can also manually race for part of the race and then simulate until the end if he needs to move on and does not have time to complete the race.

Abstract:

A simulation module simulates events that may occur during a cautionary period based on, e.g., current relative position of vehicles, vehicle and driver attributes and current game statistics for vehicles, and compiles new statistics and attributes that are used in the resumed race. A full race simulation option and a partial race simulation option are also provided. For example, in a season mode, the simulation module simulates events that may occur during a race and compiles statistics that can be used later, e.g., in a later race, for season standings, etc. A complete race may be simulated, or a partial race may be simulated, for example, if a user desires to terminate a race before it is finished, using the compiled statistics, and a new set of statistics compiled to track the simulated race events. Real world statistics are imported and used in some aspects. For example, real world standings, performance statistics and attribute information are stored in a database and are used as a basis for AI-controlled vehicle performance and AI-generated simulation results.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method of simulating game state changes responsive to an interrupt condition in a computer-implemented racing game, comprising: generating an interrupt condition during game play of the racing game at a first game state, the first game state having a first set of statistics associated therewith; responsive to said interrupt condition, interrupting game play and calculating a second set of statistics associated with a second game state by simulating events that occur after the first game state based on the first set of statistics; and wherein the second game state is a completed game state, and wherein the second set of statistics includes statistics associated with a completed race.

Damion Perrine v. Sega of America, Inc., et. al.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Case No. C: 13-1962 MEJ, Filed April 29, 2013

This is a recently filed case in the Northern District of California seeking status as a class action to bring suit against publisher Sega of America, Inc., ("Sega") and developer Gearbox Software, L.L.C., ("Gearbox") in response to the February 12, 2013, release of Aliens: Colonial Marines.  The game in question was marketed as the canon sequel to James Cameron's 1986 film Aliens and garnered much media attention up to its release.  The complaint alleges that Gearbox and Sega falsely represented the quality of the game at industry trade shows, media preview events, through deceptive trailers and screenshots.  These alleged misrepresentations began in June 2011 and continued until the game's release.  Perrine goes on to allege that even though trailers and screenshots bore watermarks stating that the game was still a "Work in Progress" that it was not reasonable to expect the game to not live up to at least the standards shown therein. 
                 
The complaint puts forth six causes of action: violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1750); violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200); violation of California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500); breach of express warranties; fraud in the inducement; and negligent misrepresentation.  The complaint goes on to allege that these representations were deceptive and intentionally done to induce purchase of the game.  The complaint also states that Sega and Gearbox knew that they made representations of quality and features that they either knew they could not or would not live up to.  The suit seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment stating that Sega and Gearbox violated the listed statutes and that their actions constituted fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation.  Furthermore, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the class, seeks the full scope of damages available as well as an injunction against Sega and Gearbox "as necessary to cease Defendants' violations" of the various statutes that have allegedly been violated.  Lastly, Plaintiff seeks restitution in the form of disgorgement of all revenue derived from sales of Aliens: Colonial Marines.

On May 2nd, 2013, the magistrate judge denied class certification without prejudice for failure to comply with California Civil Local Rule 7-2(a).  However, if Plaintiff does re-file and receive class certification, this case could have large ramifications for the videogame industry.  The industry thrives on the press cycle established via trade shows and preview coverage granted to various media outlets.  If Sega and Gearbox are found in violation of these claims, it could set a precedent for filing class action suits against any developer or publisher who releases a game that is not what consumers were expressly led to believe they were going to receive upon buying.  This could lead to massive changes in the marketing of games.  Developers would have to be more careful in regards to what information they release, and smaller developers may opt to not release as much press footage for fear of litigation.  This could have a detrimental effect in that smaller games might not receive as much (or any) attention, thus adversely affecting their potential profits.

While not strictly an IP case, its close enough that we will monitor it and provides updates regarding major developments.

U.S. Patent No. 7,090,577: Race game system and method of entry
Issued Aug. 15, 2006, to Sega


Summary:

The ‘577 patent describes a racing game which allows players to join and leave the game at will without affecting the other players’ experience. The racing game is an endurance race where many vehicles run for long periods of time. Since the vehicles are continuously running on the track, a player can select a vehicle and join a race in progress. Players receive points based upon the number of cars they can pass. Thus, since points are awarded based on personal achievements the player is not hindered by other players joining mid-game. Whenever a race is completed the players are ranked based upon their finishing positions. A player who wins a race is considered a “survivor” and will keep his place in the race whenever a new batch of competitors joins. Players who finish in other positions may be kicked from the server because of their poor performance.

Abstract:

An object is to provide a free-entry type of race game apparatus wherewith a player can join at any time. This is a race game that simulates an endurance race in which many vehicles run for a long period of time. The vehicles are continually running on the track (ST 1), from which number a player selects any vehicle at will (ST 3) and joins the race in progress (ST 4, 5). The game is terminated on the basis either of a pass count indicating the number of cars passed (or passed by) (ST 6), or a limiting time (ST 7).

Illustrative Claim:

1. A game system comprising: game execution means for enabling a plurality of players to join together and compete in a common game; a pseudo game for permitting other players different from said plurality of players to join the common game after the common game has started so as to experience the same game session as the plurality of players by playing a substantially identical game session, wherein scores of said other players do not affect a score ranking of said plurality of players competing in said common game; player setting means that, when competition of a certain scope in the common game has been concluded, reflect a plurality of competition results of said plurality of players for said common game and automatically set a new plurality of players which includes said other players and a number of said plurality of players selected based upon the plurality of competition results; and game perpetuating means for causing said automatically set plurality of players to automatically participate in said common game and for perpetuating said common game; wherein said player setting means include judgment means for determining a finish of said certain scope of said common game, determination means for determining results of said common game when said finish has been determined, and setting means for setting said new plurality of players for said common game after comparing the results of said common game against predetermined conditions.

        Next >

Buy your copy today!

Buy your copy today!
ABA Legal Guide

Buy yours today!

Buy yours today!
Video Game IP

Search This Blog

Loading...

Google Patent Search

Web 2.0

Labels

Archives

Ross Dannenberg

Steve Chang

Shawn Gorman

Copyright ©2005–present Ross Dannenberg. All rights reserved.
Visit BannerWitcoff.com