Illustrative Claim:

1. An augmented reality game system comprising:
      a head-mounted display that overlays virtual indicia onto a physical playfield;
      memory comprising video game logic that provides a video game;
      a wearable processor that utilizes said video game logic to provide video game indicia to said head-mounted display based on said video game logic, wherein said processor is coupled to said memory and said head-mounted display;
      a detector that determines landscape characteristics of said physical playfield, wherein said video game logic utilizes said landscape characteristics in providing said video game; and
      a locating device that determines the physical location of said locating device on the physical playfield, wherein said video game logic utilizes the physical location of said locating device in providing said video game.

By Bradley J. Van Pelt and Shambhavi Patel

Yesterday, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacting a federal trade secrets law. Much of the law existed under the federal Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA). However, for the first time, the DTSA provides federal jurisdiction for civil cases involving the misappropriation of trade secrets.

The DTSA attempts to bring more uniformity and predictability to litigation of trade secret misappropriation claims by permitting trade secret holders to bring civil claims directly under the federal statute. Before the DTSA, private civil actions for the misappropriation of trade secrets were generally brought in state courts, with federal litigation of these actions being limited to cases having diversity and/or supplemental jurisdiction. Although 47 states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, many state legislatures altered the original text of the UTSA before enacting it.¹ As a result, state law variations from the UTSA have led to different procedural and substantive standards being applied by state courts in trade secret cases.²

Nevertheless, the DTSA (which is grounded in the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution) will not preempt state law, unlike patent and copyright laws, making the DTSA akin to trademark law coexisting with state law. Under the DTSA, an owner of a trade secret may bring a federal civil action for the misappropriation of a “trade secret that is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.”³ Civil claims for trade secret misappropriation that are only related to intrastate commerce must still be brought in state courts, unless there is diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. Also, claims under DTSA must be brought within three years after the date on which the misappropriation is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The DTSA definitions of “trade secret” and “misappropriation” generally mirror those of the UTSA. The DTSA defines “trade secret” as all forms and types of information that (1) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (2) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.⁴ The in-depth definition of the term “misappropriation” in the DTSA includes, in part, (1) “acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means,” or (2) “disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who … used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret.”⁵ The DTSA states that the term “improper” includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means,” but excludes “reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition.”⁶

Like most state trade secret law, remedies under DTSA include injunctive relief and monetary relief. However, seizure of property is a new remedy contemplated by the DTSA. A seizure request can be brought on an ex partebasis for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.

However, the requirements for obtaining seizure are quite numerous and stringent under the DTSA. The party moving for the seizure must file an affidavit or verified complaint that satisfies each of the requirements listed under the statute.⁷ DTSA expressly states that an order for the seizure of property may be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances.” For example, in addition to specific requirements listed in the statute, if it clearly appears from specific facts that an immediate and irreparable injury will occur if such seizure is not ordered, the harm to the applicant of denying the application outweighs the harm to the legitimate interests of the person against whom seizure would be ordered, and the applicant is likely to succeed in showing that the information is a trade secret and the person against whom seizure would be ordered misappropriated or conspired to misappropriate the trade secret of the applicant by improper means.⁸

The DTSA includes several protections for the party against whom seizure is ordered. Namely, the statute requires the narrowest seizure of property necessary, stipulates that the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing within seven days (during which the order may be modified or dissolved), and allows a party against whom the order has been issued to move the court at any time to dissolve or modify the order after giving notice to the party who obtained the order.⁹ Also, any seized property remains in the custody of the court.¹⁰

A widely discussed and controversial provision of the DTSA, not present in state trade secret law, is whistleblower immunity and the consequential affirmative duties placed on employers. Specifically, the DTSA provides “immunity from liability for confidential disclosure of a trade secret to the government or in a court filing” if a disclosure of a trade secret disclosure is made “in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official…or to an attorney; and…solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law,” or is made “in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit…if such filing is made under seal.”¹¹ Additionally, an individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding.¹² However, the individual must file any document containing the trade secret under seal and otherwise cannot disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.¹³

Also, in order to receive all available remedies under the DTSA, employers have an affirmative obligation to provide notice to employees of the immunity provisions.¹⁴ Failure to comply with this affirmative obligation will preclude the employer from recovering “exemplary damages or attorney fees.”¹⁵ The employer may provide the notice in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information or by providing a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.¹⁶ Also, the definition of “employees” in the DTSA is very broadly defined in that it includes conventional employees as well as any individual performing work as a contractor or consultant.¹⁷ In view of the notice requirement, employers may be advised to review all employment-related contract or agreement documents that govern the use of a trade secret or other confidential information to ensure that these documents provide notice to employees of their rights under the immunity provision of the DTSA. The notice requirement applies to “contracts and agreements that are entered into or updated after the date of enactment [of the DTSA].” Therefore, while employers are not explicitly required to provide notice of the immunity to current employees, it may be advisable to amend contracts (or any other agreements that govern the use of a trade secret or other confidential information) with current employees in accordance with the notice requirement of the DTSA.

The DTSA also protects former employees by restricting employers from preventing former employees from working at another company on the basis of the inevitable disclosure of trade secrets. Using the inevitable disclosure doctrine, employers in certain states can enjoin a former employee from taking a new job at another company that would inevitably result in the use of the company’s trade secrets. The DTSA does not allow for injunctive relief if doing so would “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship,” thereby rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine.

Time will tell whether the DTSA brings conformity to trade secret litigation as the new act does not preclude circuit splits. That being said, the DTSA gives litigants more options in enforcing trade secrets at a juncture where many patent rights are being challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Whether to file a civil trade secret complaint in state or federal court will depend on a multitude of factors, such as the desired results of the plaintiff and whether the immunity provisions will apply. The broad definition of “employee” in the DTSA highlights the importance of non-disclosure agreements and the monitoring of relationships with contractors and vendors (both domestic and abroad) that may have access to confidential information. Moving forward, companies should review their policies and agreements to ensure that they are in compliance with the immunity provisions and have a proper notice in place.

Please click here to view Obama’s remarks at the signing of the DTSA.

Please click here to download a printable version of this article.

¹See, Brian Yeh, “Protection of Trade Secrets: Overview of Current Law and Legislation,” p. 6.

²See, Brian Yeh, “Protection of Trade Secrets: Overview of Current Law and Legislation,” p. 6.

³See, 18 U.S.C. §1836 (b)(1).

⁴See, 18 U.S.C. §1839(4).

⁵See, 18 U.S.C. §1839 (5).

⁶See, 18 U.S.C. §1839 (6).

⁷See, 18 U.S.C. §1836 (b)2(A).

⁸See, id.

⁹See, 18 U.S.C. §1836 (b)2(F)(iii).

¹⁰See,18 U.S.C. §1836 (b)2(D).

¹¹See,18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(1).

¹²See, 18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(2).

¹³See,18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(2).

¹⁴See,18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(3)(The DTSA does not provide guidance on any verbiage that would constitute sufficient notice).

¹⁵See, 18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(3)(C).

¹⁶See, 18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(3)(B).

¹⁷See, 18 U.S.C. §1833 (b)(4)).

U.S. Patent No. 8,678,891: Video game systems and methods including protecting game character(s)

The ‘891 patent applies to multi-player games, in which each player controls a separate character. A player may input a command that protects that player’s character from harm, shown by a visual indicator, such as a bubble around the character, on the screen. Once a character is protected, the player loses control of the character, and the character moves according to the action of the other, unprotected characters, for example due to the scrolling of the screen. Certain conditions remove the character’s protection, returning that character to control through player input.

Abstract:

Example systems and methods relate to a video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world. Movements and actions of each game character are controlled in accordance with a first game character control operation during the playing of the video game. If one or more conditions is satisfied by one of the players, the one player's game character is protected from harm in the gameworld. Movements and actions of the protected game character are controlled in accordance with a second game character control operation. The protecting of the one player's game character is stopped in response to one or more protecting stopping conditions, whereby the game character is again controllable in accordance with the first game character control operation. If all game characters are protected, current playing of the video game ends.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method comprising:
       while playing a multi-player video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world displayed on a display screen, controlling movements of each game character in the game world in accordance with respective first game character control operations during the playing of the multi-player video game;          in response to satisfaction of one or more conditions, protecting the one player's game character from harm in the game world; controlling movements of the protected game character in the game world; stopping the protecting of the one player's game character in response to one or more protecting stopping conditions, whereby the movements of the one player's game character in the game world are controllable in accordance with the first game character control operation for that game character; and if all game characters are protected during the playing of the multi-player video game, causing current playing of the multi-player video game to end.

Banner & Witcoff is seeking Associate Attorneys with 1-7 years of experience and a background in electrical engineering, computer engineering or computer science for its Washington, DC office. Patent prosecution experience is preferred. Associates will work closely with clients and senior attorneys in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, with opportunities available for involvement in opinion work and litigation.  Admission to a state bar and to the USPTO are required. Qualified candidates should submit a resume, cover letter, writing sample, and transcripts (law school, undergraduate and/or graduate) through this link.  Candidates may also be considered for our Chicago office.

Banner & Witcoff is dedicated to excellence in the specialized practice of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, computer, franchise and unfair competition law. The firm actively engages in the procurement, enforcement and litigation of intellectual property rights throughout the world, including all federal and state agencies, and the distribution of such rights through licensing and franchising. The firm has more than 90 attorneys and agents in its Chicago, Washington, Boston and Portland offices.

Summary:

The ‘561 patent applies to fantasy sports and covers a networked system that creates a video game sports team based on at least part of a fantasy team roster.  The system includes a server so the game team based on the fantasy roster can be used in online gaming or updated as the fantasy roster is updated. The real life actions of players on the fantasy team roster impact the play of the video game team during console play.

Abstract:

A video gaming console and related network interfaces with a server computer hosting an online fantasy sports game. The video game machine acquires a fantasy team roster of the fantasy sport game over a network that includes the Internet and the video game console is programmed to create a video game team using at least a portion of the fantasy team roster. The video game team created is playable on the video game console.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method performed by a computer server for updating a video game team roster in a sports video game played on a video game console, the computer server configured to communicate with a plurality of video game machines via a network connection that includes the Internet, the method performed by the computer server comprising the following acts:

hosting an online fantasy sports game on the computer server configured to communicate with the plurality of video game machines via the network connection that includes the Internet, the online fantasy sports game including:

a plurality of fantasy sports teams that are each operated by a fantasy team owner in a fantasy sports league;

each fantasy sports team having a fantasy team roster comprised of fantasy team members, wherein the fantasy team members are associated with real-life athletes of collegiate and/or professional sports teams and the fantasy team members of each fantasy team are selected by the fantasy team owner of each fantasy team through a fantasy draft; and

wherein the online fantasy sports game provides a score for each fantasy sports team in the fantasy sports league, the score being calculated using statistics from a real-life performance of the real-life athletes associated with the member of each fantasy sports team; and

Summary:

The ‘653 patent covers multiplayer games in which each player controls a separate character and, under certain conditions, a character may become invincible. Each player uses a separate controller. While a character is invincible, the character responds to a different control scheme than when a character is susceptible to damage.

Abstract:

Example systems and methods relate to a video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world. Movements and actions of each game character are controlled in accordance with respective first game character control operations during the playing of the video game. If one of a plurality of conditions is satisfied by one of the players, the one player's game character is protected from harm in the game world. Movements and actions of the protected game character are controlled in accordance with a second game character control operation. The protecting of the one player's game character is stopped in response to one or more protecting stopping conditions, whereby the game character is again controllable in accordance with the first game character control operation.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method comprising:

while playing a multi-player video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world displayed on a display screen,

controlling movements of each game character in the game world in accordance with respective first game character control operations during the playing of the multi-player video game;

in response to satisfaction of any one of a plurality of conditions by one of the players, protecting the one player's game character from harm in the game world, wherein the plurality of conditions include both voluntary conditions based on the one player's inputs and involuntary conditions automatically imposed by the multi-player video game;

controlling movements of the protected game character in the game world; and

Summary:

The ‘087 patent covers a method and device, which work together to collect player selected GPS information then use that information in the creation of some elements of a game world. The created elements may be derived from real world video or from other stored information. The game world is mapped over the selected GPS location.

Abstract:

A method, apparatus and computer program product for a video game including user determined location information is presented. Location information (e.g. GPS, Google Maps, an entered address or the like) determined by a user of a video game is acquired. Then user determined location information relating to a physical location determined by the user is mapped to a video game environment wherein the user of the video game experiences objects from the users entered location while playing the video game.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:

receiving information about a real world physical location for a user of a videogame;

obtaining user determined location information relating to said real world physical location determined by said user, said user determined location information comprising continuous pre-recorded actual video of said real world physical location and of an area surrounding said real world physical location; and

Summary:

The ‘412 patent covers both single and multi-player video games. The games covered have different content sets, or quests, that can be completed by any combination of a single player, other real world players, and artificial intelligences. The player can move between these content sets, interact with the players therein, and complete discrete goals.

Abstract:

A system and method are configured to provide a videogame to one or more players. The videogame may involve a series of different sets of content within which players perform activities. A group of players may be associated with the content sets. The players may include virtual players controlled by artificial intelligence and one or more real world players. Players may progress through the videogame by moving from content sets to content sets, performing objectives in the various content sets, and interacting with the players within those content sets.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A system configured to provide a player with a videogame, the system comprising:

a game platform configured to implement one or more computer program modules to provide a player with the videogame, the one or more computer program modules comprising:

a content module configured to manage multiple sets of content within the videogame, wherein the multiple sets of content within the videogame comprise a first content set that is accessible to the player engaging in the videogame and a second content set that is not accessible to the player initially within the videogame, wherein the second content set is associated with a first set of criteria, wherein the content module is configured to unlock the second content set within the videogame for the player to enable the player to access the second content set within the videogame responsive to the player fulfilling the first set of criteria, wherein the first set of criteria includes performance of one or more tasks provided by the first content set that are not sufficient to pass the first content set, successful participation in one or more events associated with the first content set, and achieving a first disposition mode for a social relationship between the player and one or more virtual players in the videogame, and wherein the first content set and the second content set must be passed to complete the videogame; and

Summary:

The ‘707 patent is a hardware patent, which covers a game controller that can be used by two or more players cooperatively. The controller senses real world movement and converts these signals into information that can control game play. The controller relies on conductive materials to sense how many players are using the controller and in which ways.

Abstract:

The present invention provides a video game controller and apparatus that may be used by two or more players. The users physically manipulate the control device cooperatively to the kinesthetic feedback of the other player(s) to control the events of the video game. By working together through orientation of the controller, the players can jointly move the video game object on the screen and/or govern the play of the game.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A video game system for cooperative play by two or more players comprising:

a first conductive material attached to or in contact with a first player's body and a second conductive material attached to or in contact with a second player's body;

a microcontroller in communication with the first and second conductive materials, said microcontroller further being in communication with a computer processing unit (CPU) or a game console;