Summary:
U.S. Patent No. 9,061,205 (the '205 Patent) describes a method to add more variety in a music rhythm game during a free play routine. Music rhythm games like Guitar Hero often feature a free play feature. The '205 describes a method where if the player holds the plastic guitar in a certain position during free play, the game will enter into a different mode. Pointing the head of the guitar downward would access a power chord mode. The game would mute the normal audio sample and begin to play a power chord version of the same song. The idea is to recreate the artistic nature that takes place during live performances. A real guitarist can add or subtract elements from a song while playing, and that is the type of freedom the '205 Patent aims to give players.


Abstract:

Illustrative Claim:
1. A method of generating audio tracks in a music video game, comprising: receiving a first input signal indicating status of a first plurality of input devices of a video game controller; outputting a polyphonic audio compilation based on the first input signal, the polyphonic audio compilation including at least two audio tracks featuring a sequence of notes or chords of different instruments; receiving a second input signal indicating status of a second plurality of input devices of the video game controller; selecting at least one of the at least two audio tracks based on the second input signal; and muting the at least one of the at least two audio tracks.


Researched By: Andrew F. Thomas

A music based video game in which a game player's singing performance is digitally sampled while the player performs a free-form vocal over a prerecorded musical composition. Aspects of the game player's free-form vocal performance are compared with predetermined criteria. For example, the vocal performance may be compared with tempo and key information to generate performance evaluation data. The performance evaluation data may be used to present performance feedback to the game player while the game player is singing. 1. A method for evaluating vocal inputs in a music based video game, comprising: repeatedly over time receiving input signals providing audio information; repeatedly over a particular time period determining a pitch of the audio information so as to determine a plurality of pitches of the audio information; determining if the pitches are in accordance with a plurality of target pitches, without regard to particular timing of individual pitches of the plurality of pitches; determining a valuation based on whether the pitches are in accordance with a target key; and commanding presentation of an indication of the valuation.

Abstract:
A video game maps each of a plurality of outputs to inputs associated with a video game controller. In some embodiments, the plurality of outputs represent the various potential outputs of a drum set. Combinations of video game controller inputs are used to generate the outputs. Video game controller inputs include traditional input devices such as button inputs, as well as input signals generated from positioning and movement of the video game controllers. In some embodiments, a video game console provides a video representation of the outputs generated by input combinations received from the video game controllers.
Illustrative Claim:
1. A method of providing audio and video outputs for a video game, comprising: receiving an input signal from a video game controller, the input signal being based on an output of an accelerometer of the video game controller; receiving additional signals from a plurality of additional inputs on the video game controller, the additional signals being based on status of a plurality of buttons of the video game controller, at least one combination of the additional inputs being associated with a predefined sequence of successive audio outputs; selecting one or more audio outputs to output based on the input signal and the additional signals, the one or more audio outputs including the predefined sequence of successive audio outputs; and determining a video output based on the selection of the one or more audio outputs.

Researched By: Andrew F. Thomas

Summary:
U.S. Patent No. 9,381,430 describes a method for toys to interact with a video game. Only designated toys containing an identification tag can interact with a compatible video game. A peripheral detection device is needed for the video game to read the game data contained in the toy's tag. The toy's game data can alter the gameplay by giving a character a new attack or item. A user must place the toy in the designated area on the peripheral device for the video game to detect the data.

The '430 Patent relates to Activision's Skylanders franchise since the patent uses Spyro the Dragon in certain figures. Spyro appeared in the first Skylanders and has been a key character in the Skylanders lore. The Skylanders franchise popularized the toys-to-life video game genre. Since 2011, Activision has released six main Skylanders games and six spin-off games. By 2016, the Skylanders franchise had sold over 300 million toys. Both Disney and Lego tried to compete against Activision, but both companies have ceased to make toys-to-life games or products.

A video game includes a peripheral device that senses the presence and identity of toys near or on the peripheral. Each of the toys includes an identification device such as an RFID tag. Each of the toys is also associated with a corresponding game character or object. The interactive video game presents a play pattern such that when a toy is detected in a detection area of the peripheral, the virtual game system may process the placement of the toy so as to effectuate a video game control action such as an attack or a maneuver to evade an enemy.

On July 10, 2018, Infernal Technology and Terminal Reality (Infernal) filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Crytek GmbH (Crytek) infringed upon U.S. Patent Nos. 6,362,822 (the '822 Patent) and 7,061,488 (the '488 Patent). The two patents relate to lighting and shadowing methods in computer graphic simulations.

Image from the '822 Patent, Fig. 2.

Claim 1 of the '822 Patent reads:

A shadow rendering method for use in a computer system, the method comprising the steps of:

providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene;

providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources arranged to illuminate said scene, said lighting data including light image data;

for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said light data to determine if a modeled point within storing at least a portion of said light image data associated with said point and said light source in a light accumulation buffer; and then

combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and

displaying resulting image data to a computer screen. ('822 patent, col 12, lines 4-21).

Infernal claims that Crytek's utilization of video game engine "CryEngine" allegedly infringes the asserted patents. According to the Complaint, Crytek used the allegedly infringing game engine to develop the Crysis series, Warface, Ryse: Son of Rome, The Climb, and Robinson: The Journey.

Typically, the next step for a defendant in this situation is to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an Inter Partes Review (IPR), but the '822 and '488 Patents have already survived an IPR because of earlier litigation. In 2015, Infernal sued Electronic Arts for patent infringement. EA responded by petitioning the PTAB for an IPR; however, the PTAB found the '822 and '488 Patents to be "Not Unpatentable." EA settled the lawsuit after the PTAB's decision. Crytek can still petition for an IPR of the asserted patents, but will likely have to use different prior art that the art used by EA or provide a good reason why the Board got it wrong the first time around.

If this seems like deja vu that is because Infernal filed complaints similar to the Crytek Complaint against Microsoft in April and against Activision Blizzard in May. To read our blog post on the Microsoft case click here.  We will continue to monitor all three of these cases and provide updates when possible.

FIG. 5 shows avatars (gamvatars) having a game item function according to an embodiment of the present invention, and it exemplifies gamvatars 530 and 540 generated by combining an avatar 510 which wears clothes purchased at the avatar shop 430 and a game item 520 purchased at the item shop 440. The gamvatar 530 shows the avatar 510 but is arranged in the background layer. As described above, it is possible for the avatar 510 to wear the item 520 or not wear the item 520 depending on the user's setting. ('743 patent, col. 6, lines 33-44).

On May 15, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) instituted two Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings against U.S. 5,822,523 (the “’523 Patent”).  The ’523 Patent generally relates to group messaging in interactive applications.  The petitioner is Riot Games, Inc. (“Riot Games”), maker of popular titles like League of Legends The patent owner is Paltalk Holdings, Inc. (“Paltalk”).  From 2006-2009, the ’523 Patent was asserted by Paltalk in patent infringement cases against Microsoft, Sony, Activision Blizzard, NCsoft, Jagex, and Turbine Inc., among others.



Claim 1 of the ’523 Patent reads:

1. A method for providing group messages to a plurality of host computers connected over a unicast wide area communication network, comprising the steps of:

   providing a group messaging server coupled to said network, said server communicating with said plurality of host computers using said unicast network and maintaining a list of message groups, each message group containing at least one host computer;

   sending, by a plurality of host computers belonging to a first message group, messages to said server via said unicast network, said messages containing a payload portion and a portion for identifying said first message group;

   aggregating, by said server in a time interval determined in accordance with a predefined criterion, said payload portions of said messages to create an aggregated payload;

   forming an aggregated message using said aggregated payload; and

   transmitting, by said server via said unicast network, said aggregated message to a recipient host computer belonging to said first message group.

Both Riot Games and Paltalk agree that the ’523 Patent expired.  While it might seem strange for Riot Games to attack the validity of an expired patent, a patent owner may sue for damages that were incurred when their now-expired patent was valid, though they cannot recover damages that were incurred more than six years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.  As it appears that the ’523 Patent expired in 2016, Paltalk could potentially file patent infringement lawsuits up until around 2022, but only for damages that they incurred prior to 2016, and only so long as their damages were in the six years before they filed the lawsuits.  For example, if Paltalk sued a game company for patent infringement on Jan. 1, 2021, they could recover damages from Jan. 1, 2015, up until the date the ’523 Patent expired in 2016.

an event module configured to manage a first set of events associated with the first content set, and to determine if the player has successfully participated in individual events in the first set of events, and wherein the first set of criteria associated with the first content set requires successful performance of some subset of the first set of events as determined by the event module.

adding at least some audio with the video compilation to thereby form an audiovisual presentation, the at least some audio being associated with events included in the video compilation.

adding at least some audio with the video compilation to thereby form an audiovisual presentation, the at least some audio being associated with events included in the video compilation.

Back in November 2010, a former World of Warcraft game master sued Blizzard alleging copyright infringement based on use of her voice with the adorable baby murlocs in the game. According to the facts presented in that case, Blizzard had sent an email to all GMs inviting them to audition for vocal parts in July 2005. Around 120 GMs, including the plaintiff signed up and attended two recording sessions with Blizzard sound engineers. Later, the plaintiff discovered that her recordings were used in baby murloc sound effects (and also a song for when the baby murloc breaks into dance). The plaintiff contended that the recordings were outside the scope of her employment, that she owned copyright in them, and that they were used without authorization in the game.

mrglgllrlrlglgrgrglgl

In 2012, the Northern District of California ruled in Blizzard's favor. The court in that case pointed to the employee handbook for Game Masters, which included this portion:

Game Masters are customer service specialists with expert knowledge of the game who are [] present as characters within World of Warcraft’s epic fantasy setting to provide assistance and guidance to players while also coordinating world functionality. In this capacity, GM’s serve as the direct link between Blizzard and its customers. Additionally, GM’s are responsible for in-game customer support, helping manage our online community, and assisting with the creation of content during the ever ongoing development of the game. 

(emphasis added). The fact that the plaintiff was paid for her sound recording audition carried significant weight with the court as well as that the plaintiff knew that the recordings would be used in promoting the game. The court held that the work was a work made for hire and that copyright solely belonged to Blizzard, and rendered summary judgment in Blizzard's favor. The court also awarded attorney's fees to Blizzard.

Now the case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Per Law360 (subscription required) and an audio recording of the hearing, the plaintiff argues that the lower court misinterpreted the GMs job responsibilities and that the quoted portion of the handbook is in direct contradiction to other portions of the handbook. The plaintiff continues to argue that the sound recordings were made outside the scope of her employment and thus should copyright should belong to her. Blizzard argues that her job responsibilities as stated involved content creation and that the lower court's decision was sound.

The issues in this case were made a lot easier for Blizzard due to their employee handbook. It is a good practice to ensure that content included in your game was made by employees acting within stated job responsibilities, or subject to an express work for hire agreement / copyright assignment.

We will continue to watch this case for interesting developments.

Looks like the Worlds Inc v. Activision case has been dismissed, at least for now.  In an interesting development, it appears that Activision was successful in arguing that Worlds' patent attorneys did not properly claim priority to the filing date of the earliest patent in the family of patents being asserted.  Without that priority date, Worlds patents were invalid because their own products embodying the patents were released more than one year prior to the next filing date.  Worlds tried to correct the mistake by requesting a Certificate of Correction from the USPTO, which was granted on Sept. 24, 2013, but the court said that the certificate of correction was prospective only, and could not be used retroactively.  So the net result is that Worlds' patents were invalid until Sept. 24, 2013, but are valid now.  However, Worlds' case against Activision was premised on infringement occurring prior to Sept. 24, 2013, which is while the patents were invalid, so the court dismissed the lawsuit.

Interesting notes about this case:

• Worlds Inc. can still appeal.  However, their attorneys are on contingency fee, so it might not be worth it for them at this point.
• Worlds Inc. is free to refile the case, if it can allege infringement by Activision post-Sept. 24, 2013
• Worlds Inc. earliest priority date is Nov. 13, 1995.  That means that its patents will likely expire around Nov. 13, 2015 (there may be some time added based on delays by the USPTO during prosecution of the patents... still need to check on that).
• For any new case filed, the period of time for possible damages is only Sep. 24, 2013 - Nov. 13, 2015.  Not much time to rack up a huge damages award.
• Any new case filed likely wouldn't be resolved until after the patents expires, thereby taking the threat of an injunction off the table.

Activision delivers a knockout punch.

P.S. Products had sued Activision Blizzard for patent infringement based on a design patent owned by P.S. Products directed to the design of a stun gun shaped to look like and be worn as brass knuckles.  Activision Blizzard had included a different looking virtual brass-knuckle-stun-gun in Call of Duty, Black Ops II. Litigation ensued.  After various motions, and before getting too far along, the court has now granted Activision's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Two points are critical here.

First, the differences between the two designs:

P.S. Products' Design Patent D561,294:
Activision Blizzard's Galvaknuckles:


Second, the design patent depicts physical brass knuckles, whereas the galvaknuckles are only ever rendered as a virtual item in a video game.  Activision Blizzard does not manufacture or sell physical Galvaknuckles.

While the differences in appearance certainly weigh in the mind of the judge, the court instead relies heavily on the second point in dismissing the patent infringement claim, stating "[n]o reasonable person would purchase defendants’ video game believing that they were purchasing plaintiffs’ stun gun."  The court thereby apparently takes the view that a design patent for a physical item is not infringed by a virtual rendering of that item. However, the court is silent regarding whether the significant differences in the designs of the two items at issue here played any part in its analysis.  The court also dismissed (for less interesting reasons) the unfair trade, trade dress, and trademark infringement counts.

Order dated February 21, 2014

In October of 2009, Blizzard brought suit against Alyson Reeves for operating a private server for the popular MMORPG, "World of Warcraft."  Usually, a player buys the WoW game software and pays a monthly subscription fee to use the service.  The copyrighted software, or "game client," allows the user to access the game and will only connect to authorized servers.  Likewise, the server software is copyrighted by Blizzard and will only recognize authorized game clients.  Before being able to access the game, users must also agree to Blizzard's End User's License Agreement and Terms of Use. After agreeing to both contracts, the user must finally pass Blizzard's anti-piracy system that authenticates the user's game client before allowing access to the game content.

In its complaint, Blizzard alleged that Reeves had violated its copyrights, circumvented copyright protection systems, and engaged in unfair competition among other claims.  Blizzard alleged that Reeves violated its copyrights through the operation of a website called "scapegaming."  Users of scapegaming's services did not have to pay a subscription fee and the service allowed users to access unauthorized servers that emulated Blizzard's own. Furthermore, scapegaming allowed pirated or unauthorized game clients to access its servers since it did not use an anti-piracy system.  Blizzard alleged that scapegaming achieved this by reverse engineering code taken from Blizzard's game client and servers.  Users were able to access WoW content through these servers and could make donations to scapegaming to keep its servers operational.  Between July 22, 2007, and September 26, 2009, Reeves received approximately $3,052,339 from donations and transactions through Paypal's "shopping cart."

After the initiation of this lawsuit, Reeves failed to appear and did not respond to the complaint.  Blizzard filed a motion for default judgement that was granted on August 10, 2010.  Blizzard was awarded  $88,594,539 in damages:  $3,052,339 in disgorged profits, $85,478,600 in statutory damages, and $63,600 in attorneys fees.  The statutory damages appear suspect, and could be overturned on appeal, but in view of the default judgment it doesn't appeal likely that will happen.

Walker Digital, LLC, a self-professed “invention” company who claims to hold over 500 patents, has filed suit against Activision, Inc., Activision Blizzard, Inc. and Zynga, Inc. In the complaint, Walker Digital alleges that the defendants’ games infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 6,425,828, entitled “Database Driven Online Distributed Tournament System.” The patent claims priority to 1998, and its first claim reads as follows:

1. A method of conducting a distributed electronic tournament for a plurality of players, comprising:

exchanging information between a central controller and a player located remotely from the central controller, the information (i) being exchanged while the player plays a game in the tournament and (ii) influencing game play; and

storing in a database player information associated with the player, the stored player information being available for use in a subsequent tournament to influence game play of the subsequent tournament while the player is playing a subsequent game in the subsequent tournament.

The complaint alleges infringement by a litany of games, including (among others) Activision Blizzard’s Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (1 and 2), Call of Duty: World at War, Blur, DJ Hero 2, Cabela’s North American Adventures, and World of Warcraft (and its expansions packs), and Zynga’s Mafia Wars, Vampire Wars, Fashion Wars and Street Racing.

We’ll keep you posted on this one. The case caption is Walker Digital, LLC v. Activision et al., No. 1:11-cv-00004 (D. Del. filed Jan. 3, 2011).