Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00501-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAMETEK LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-501 BEN (RBB)

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

vs.

FACEBOOK, INC.; et al.,

Defendants.

In this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of ten claim

terms, as well as dispute the order of the claim elements in three claims, found in U.S.

Patent No. 7,076,445. Having considered the papers filed by the parties and oral

argument, the Court construes the terms as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff GameTek LLC is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in

U.S. Patent No. 7,076,445 (“the ’445 patent”), entitled “System and Methods for

Obtaining Advantages and Transacting the Same in a Computer Gaming Environment.” 

The ’445 patent relates to the creation, use, and selling of “advantages” within a

gaming context. (See ’445 patent, at Abstract, 11:54-14:62.) In the context of the ’445

patent, “an advantage is a feature or element within an environment that one is not

intended to have or does not normally have access to that provides an edge in

overcoming a presented challenge.” (Id. at 1:33-36.) 

According to the specification, “gaming enthusiasts are willing to pay for the

- 1 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

opportunity to obtain an advantage.” (Id. at 1:54-55.) At the time of invention, “there

[we]re no comprehensive systems and methods for the creation, integration, and

transaction of advantages.” (Id. at 2:20-22.) Rather, gaming enthusiasts found

advantages by “searching for free shortcuts and tricks (i.e. advantages) in on-line chat

rooms . . . or [] purchas[ing] and subscrib[ing] to publications” in the gaming context. 

(Id. at 2:23-25.)

The ’445 patent relates to methods of selling game objects that confer benefits

on the purchaser in a computer game. (See id. at 11:54-58, 13:34-48, 14:8-12.) 

Examples of such game objects include “weapons,” “ammunition,” “skill,”

“information about the game environment,” and “ability to speed.” (Id. at 13:17-23.) 

The patent claims a computer program that permits creation of a user account,

maintains a balance of real or virtual currency, and collects and stores demographic

information. (See id. at 11:61-63, 13:41-42, 14:17-18.) The program tailors offers to

purchase game objects based on tracked activity, the current game environment, and

the user’s demographics. (See, e.g., id. at 11:59-60, 12:13-19.)

In addition, the ’445 patent claims a method for creating, transacting in, and

integrating game objects, which generally requiresthe following steps:(1) determining

the user’s eligibility to purchase an itemby allowing the user to select an object, setting

the purchase price of the object (potentially determined by the user’s prior purchase

history or actions), and comparing the user’s account balance to the price of the object;

(2) displaying the purchase price of the object; (3) presenting the user with an offer to

purchase the object; (4) permitting the user to purchase the object without interrupting

the user’s playing of the game; and (5) incorporating the purchased object into the

game without interrupting the user’s playing of the game. (See id. at 11:67-12:27,

13:43-64, 14:15-39; see also id. at 2:65-3:3, 3:20-44, 3:54-58, 5:35-38, 6:21-26, 6:40-

48.)

GameTek brings this action for infringement of the ’445 patent. Specifically,

GameTek asserts claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 against Defendant Big Viking

- 2 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Games Inc. f/k/a Tall Tree Games. GameTek originally brought suit against 21

defendants. Big Viking Gamesisthe only remaining defendant, as all other defendants

have been either dismissed or severed from the action.

The parties have submitted competing constructions for ten claim terms found

in the ’445 patent. In addition, the parties dispute the order of the claim elements in

claim 1, claim 15, and claim 17. 

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the

invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Courts determine the meaning of disputed claim terms from the perspective of a person

of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent isfiled. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear

Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim terms “are generally given their

ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

When construing claim terms, the court should first look to sources in the

intrinsic record. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996). First, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of

particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Second, the claims “must be read

in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 (internal quotation

marks omitted). The specification is usually “dispositive,” as “it is the single best

guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Third, the court should consider the patent’s prosecution history, which is the record

of proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and includesthe prior

art cited during the patent examination. Id. at 1317. However, “because the

prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the

applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of

- 3 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. 

If the intrinsic evidence resolves the ambiguity in the disputed claim terms, then

“it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. If

ambiguities in the claim terms remain, however, courts may consider extrinsic

evidence. Id. at 1584. Extrinsic evidence includes expert testimony, inventor

testimony, dictionaries, and scientific treatises. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 

II. THE ’445 PATENT

The parties have submitted competing constructions for ten claim terms found

in the ’445 patent. In addition, the parties dispute the order of the claim elements of

claim 1, claim 15, and claim 17. Each claim term and set of claim elements will be

addressed in turn.

A. “gaming action”

The parties dispute the term “gaming action.” The parties propose the following

constructions. The Court’s adopted construction is highlighted.

Term GameTek’s

Proposed

Construction

Big Viking

Games’s Proposed

Construction 

Court’s

Adopted

Construction

“gaming action” Ordinary meaning;

no construction

necessary.

Alternatively, acts,

activities or things

done that are part of

the game.

“the user’s playing

of the game”

“the game being

played”

The Court will first address “gaming action.” This term is used in independent

claims 1, 15, and 17, and in dependent claims 2, 9, 10, 16, and 18. Claim 1 is

representative:

A method of managing the operation of a game which . . . is

programmed to control a gaming action for at least one of a plurality of

users, said managing method using a programmed computer to effect the

following steps:

- 4 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) tracking the activity of the at least one user in the course of the

gaming action;

. . . 

e) presenting to the at least one user an offer to purchase the game object

dependent upon a group of game parameters comprising the tracked

activity of the at least one gaming action of the at least one user . . . 

f) permitting the at least one user to purchase the at least one game

object at the set purchase price without interrupting the gaming action

of the at least one user; and

g) supplying the at least one purchased game object to the at least one

user without interrupting the gaming action of the at least one user . . . .

(’445 patent, at 11:54-12:26 (emphasis added).)

During the claim construction hearing, the parties agreed that the term “gaming

action” should be construed as “the game being played.” (Hearing Tr. [Docket No.

210], at 8-9, 11.) The parties disagreed only as to whether the purchase of a game

object is part of the “gaming action.” (Id. at 9.) Big Viking Games argued that it is not

part of the gaming action, while GameTek argued that it is. (Id. at 9, 11-12.) Because

the parties agreed that only this one dispute remains, the Court will address only the

arguments relating to whether the purchase of a game object is part of the gaming

action.

The Court finds that the purchase of a game object is not part of the gaming

action. The claim language distinguishes between gaming action and the purchase of

a game object. For instance, claim 1 provides: “f) permitting the at least one user to

purchase the at least one game object at the set purchase price without interrupting the

gaming action of the at least one user.” (’445 patent, at 12:20-22 (emphasis added);

see also, e.g.,id. at 8:23-25 (distinguishing between “gaming content” and “advantages

dialog box” in Fig. 2).) “Gaming action” cannot interrupt itself, so purchasing a game

object must be distinct from “gaming action.” See Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S.

Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (to maintain “internal

coherence . . . the use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different

meanings”).

In addition, the prosecution history supports this construction. In the Notice of

Allowability, the patent examiner explained how the ’445 patent could be distinguished

- 5 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from the prior art. The notice provided:

Some of the prior art gaming systems offer ‘continuation’ where play is

resumed after a loss of game lives (e.g. SoulCalibur), an options screen

where a player can obtain new gaming objects(e.g. Age of Empires), and/or

an in-game object select option (e.g. Shrek 2). None of these systems,

however, disclose offering a game object to a user for a price and allowing

said user to access and incorporate said object in a game without

interrupting the game. . . . 

To one of ordinary skill . . . the closest prior art teaching to

Applicant’s claims is a combination of the Martinez et al., Roskowski et al.,

and Heckel teachings where a user is presented, in a game environment,

with an ad for a game object based on gameplay, the user downloads the

object and the object is incorporated into the game. However, the instant

invention is distinguished from the prior art singly or in combination as the

system tracks a user’s gaming action, the system determines whether a user

is eligible to purchase a game object based on the user’s account balance,

the system presents an offer to the user to purchase the game object based

on at least said tracked gaming action, the user purchases and is supplied

with the game objectwithout interrupting the gaming action, and the object

is incorporated into the game.

(Gaedt Decl., Exh. C, at 4-6 (emphasis added).) This shows that the ’445 patent could

be distinguished from the prior art based on the way the user could purchase and be

supplied with game objects without interrupting the gaming action, among other things. 

As discussed above, because “gaming action” cannotinterrupt itself, purchasing a game

object must be distinct from “gaming action.” 

GameTek argues that there are examples of purchasing in the specification that

are part of the gaming action. First, GameTek points to the section of the specification

that provides that “in a simulation role playing game, real world products and/or

services advertisements may be integrated in the game’s landscape such that a user may

interact with the cyber world advertisements to transact real world products and/or

services.” (’445 patent, at 8:57-62 (emphasis added).) As an example of this, the user

can enter the ABC Pizza Shop in order to purchase ABC Pizza. The ABC Pizza Shop

isreferred to as “interactive content 405” in the specification. (Id. at 8:66.) According

to GameTek, this means that the action of the game includes “interaction” with ABC

Pizza Shop. 

In the same vein, GameTek points to Figure 2 and Figure 4A. Both figures are

- 6 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 6 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“screen shots that display various features of the advantages and interactive

advertisementssystem.” (Id. at 8:18-20.) Specifically, they are examples of how a user

may be offered the opportunity to purchase more ammunition in a shooting game. In

Figure 2, a dialogue box appears asking the user if he or she would like to purchase

additional ammunition. The specification describes Figure 2 as depicting an

“interactive game” comprising an “interactive advertisements system” embodied in

advantages dialogue box 210. (Id. at 8:20-38.) In regards to Figure 4, the specification

provides that “[a]s the participating user runs low on ammunition (or some other

condition), advantages information 425 is displayed to offer advantages to the

participating user. As such, the advantage isintegrated into computing application 413

. . . .” (Id. at 9:28-41.)

It is true that the above examples demonstrate that advertisements may consist

of interactive content and therefore be part of the gaming action. Big Viking Games,

however, does not argue that the presentation of advertisements during game play is

not gaming action. The claims are not directed toward the presentation of

advertisements, but rather the ability to acquire a game object by conducting a real-time

transaction. That is, the claims do not require that advertisements be presented without

interrupting the game; the claims require only that users be able to purchase a game

object without interrupting the gaming action.

Accordingly, “gaming action” shall be construed as “the game being played.” 

“Gaming action” does not include the purchase of game objects.

B. “interrupting” terms

The parties dispute the “interrupting” terms. The parties propose the following

constructions. The Court’s adopted constructions are highlighted.

///

///

///

///

- 7 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 7 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

“interrupting the gaming

action of the at least one

user”

Ordinary meaning; no

construction necessary.

Alternatively,

interrupting the gaming

action while the user is

interacting with the game.

“causing or making a

break in the user’s ability

to continue playing the

game”

“interrupting” Ordinary meaning; no

construction necessary.

Alternatively, ceasing or

stopping for a period of

time.

“causing or making a

break in the user’s ability

to continue”

“permitting the at least

one user to purchase the

at least one game object

. . . without interrupting

the gaming action of the

at least one user”

See constructions re:

“purchase,” “gaming

action,” and

“interrupting.” 

Otherwise, ordinary

meaning; no construction

necessary.

“permitting a user to

purchase a game object

without causing or

making a break in the

user’s ability to continue

playing the game”

“supplying the at least

one purchased game

object to the at least one

user without interrupting

the gaming action of the

at least one user”

See constructions re:

“purchase,” “gaming

action,” “interrupting,”

and “interrupting the

gaming action of the at

least one user.” 

Otherwise, ordinary

meaning; no construction

necessary.

“supply the . . . game

object to the user without

causing or making a

break in the user’s ability

to continue playing the

game”

“ordering the at least one

selected game object

without interrupting the

gaming action of the at

least one user”

See constructions re:

“action,” “gaming

action,” and

“interrupting.”

Otherwise, ordinary

meaning; no construction

necessary.

“ordering a game object

without causing or

making a break in the

user’s ability to continue

playing the game”

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the term “interrupting” does not need to

- 8 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 8 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

be construed by the Court. (Hearing Tr. [Docket No. 210], at 58-59.) They agreed that

the only disagreements between the parties in regards to “interrupting” relate to the

parties’ proposed construction of “gaming action,” discussed above. (Id. at 61.) The

constructions of the remaining “interrupting” term phrases relate to the constructions

of the individual terms that make up the phrase, such as “purchase,” “gaming action,”

“interrupting” and “interrupting the gaming action of the at least one user.” 

Accordingly, the Court declines to construe the terms “interrupting the gaming

action of the at least one user” and “interrupting.” The construction of the term

“permitting the at least one user to purchase the at least one game object . . . without

interrupting the gaming action of the at least one user” depends on the Court’s

constructions for “purchase,” “gaming action,” and “interrupting.” The construction

of the term “supplying the at least one purchased game object to the at least one user

without interrupting the gaming action of the at least one user” depends on the Court’s

constructions for “purchase,” “gaming action,” “interrupting,” and “interrupting the

gaming action of the at least one user.” The construction of the term “ordering the at

least one selected game object without interrupting the gaming action of the at least one

user” depends on the Court’s constructions for “action,” “gaming action,” and

“interrupting.”

C. “the at least one user having a set of demographics” / “set of

demographics”

The parties dispute the terms “the at least one user having a set of demographics”

and “set of demographics.” The parties propose the following constructions. The

Court’s adopted constructions are highlighted.

///

///

///

- 9 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 9 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

“the at least one user

having a set of

demographics”

“the at least one user has

a set of characteristics

such as age or sex”

“the account maintains

two or more types of

statistical characteristics

(such as age, sex, or

income) associated with

the user”

“set of demographics” “the one set of

characteristics such as

age or sex”

“two or more types of

statistical characteristics

(such as age, sex, or

income) associated with

the user”

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that there is no meaningful dispute

between the parties in regards to the term “demographics.” GameTek proposes the

term be construed as “characteristics such as age or sex” while Big Viking Games

proposes the term be construed as “statistical characteristics (such as age, sex, or

income).” These constructions are substantively the same.

First, the term “the at least one user having a set of demographics” appears in

claim 1(b): “permitting the at least one user to create an account for receiving a

consideration of the at least one user, the at least one user having a set of

demographics.” (’445 patent, at 11:61-63 (emphasis added).) The parties dispute

whether the demographic information needs to be stored, and if so, where. The Court

finds that the disputed element requires that the demographics of the user be stored in

the user’s account. 

A function of the demographic information is contemplated. Claim 1(e)

provides: “presenting to the at least one user an offer to purchase the game object

dependant upon a group of game parameters comprising the tracked activity of the at

least one gaming action of the at least one user and, the one game environment or the

one set of demographics of the at least one user.” (Id. at 12:13-19.) In order for an

offer to purchase a game object to depend on the user’s demographics, they must be

- 10 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 10 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

known and accessible to the game. To accomplish this, the demographics associated

with the user must be stored. 

The specification supports this construction. For instance, the patent discloses

that “this system may track and store participating user’s advantages information such

as demographic information, buying habits preferences and tastes.” (Id. at 6:12-15.) 

In addition, Figure 5 is a flow chart of the claimed method. In this figure, the steps

flow as follows: “Create Account?”, followed by “Procure User Demographic and

Payment Method Information,” followed by “Create User Profile Information (For Use

by Interactive Advertisements).” The description of Figure 5 states that if it is

determined that the user does not have an account and would like to create one,

“processing proceeds to block 555 where user demographic and payment information

is procured.” (Id. at 10:14-16.)

Moreover, the demographic information is stored in the user’s account. The

phrase “set of demographics” occurs in claim 1(b), which also discusses the creation

of a user account. (Id. at 11:61-63.) This indicates that the demographic information

isstored in the account, rather than the user profile, as GameTek asserts. Accordingly,

the term “the at least one user having a set of demographics” shall be construed as “the

account maintains two or more types of statistical characteristics (such as age, sex, or

income) associated with the user.”

Second, the term “set of demographics” appearsin claim 1(e): “presenting to the

at least one user an offer to purchase the game object dependent upon a group of game

parameters comprising the tracked activity of the at least one gaming action of the at

least one user and, the one game environment or the one set of demographics of the

least one user.” (Id. at 12:14-19.) The parties dispute whether a “set of demographics”

requires the use of a single piece of demographic information about the user

(GameTek’s position), or whether it requires the use of two or more pieces of

demographic information (Big Viking Games’s position).

- 11 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 11 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The ordinary meaning of the term “set” is “two or more.” See, e.g., Mueller

Sports Med., Inc. v. Core Prod. Int’l, Inc., No. 02-C-445-C, 2003 WL 23200261, at *3

(W.D. Wis. Mar. 3, 2003) (“Common-sense definition” of “set” is “two ormore”); Ergo

Licensing LLP v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 381, 385 (D. Me. 2010) (“[S]et

ordinarily refers to a collection, that is, two or more, when it precedes and describes a

plural noun.”). In addition, the patentee’s decision to use the plural form

“demographics”—as opposed to “demographic”—supports Big Viking Games’s

proposed construction. See, e.g., Sony Elecs., Inc. v. Guardian Media Techs., Ltd., 658

F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1222 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that a “set of codes” must mean more

than one code, given the patent’s use of the plural of “code”). The term

“demographics” refers to more than one piece of demographic information. See, e.g.,

Gaedt Decl., Exh. K (Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001) (“demographics”:

“n. (pl. in number). Demographic data . . . .”).

The dictionary definitions that GameTek offers in support of its argument that

“set of demographics” requires the use of a single piece of demographic information

do not define the ordinary meaning of the term “set.” Rather, these dictionary

definitions present a specialized meaning of “set” used in the context of mathematics. 

(See Pl. Op. Br. at 17, n.44.) These dictionary definitions are not relevant here, as the

disputed term is not used in a mathematical sense.

Accordingly, “set of demographics” shall be construed as “two or more types of

statistical characteristics (such as age, sex, or income) associated with the user.”

D. “ordering”

The parties dispute the term “ordering.” The parties propose the following

constructions. The Court’s adopted construction is highlighted.

///

///

- 12 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 12 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction

“ordering” Ordinary meaning, no

construction necessary.

“the system placing an

order for an object from a

third party”

The term “ordering” is found in claim 15: “A method of . . . using a programmed

computer to effect the following steps: . . . (g) ordering the at least one selected game

object without interrupting the gaming action of the at least one user.” (’445 patent,

at 13:34-59.) The Court finds that Claim 15 is unambiguous—it requires that a

programmed computer be used to order a selected game object, which issupplied to the

user. 

Big Viking Games presents several arguments in support of construing

“ordering” as “placing an order for an object from a third party.” First, Big Viking

Games argues that the claims and specification distinguish between “ordering” on one

hand, and “purchasing,” “supplying,” and “commitment to purchase” on the other hand. 

Even assuming that the term “ordering” must have a distinct meaning from

“purchasing,” “supplying,” and “commitment to purchase,” it does not follow that the

object must be ordered from a third party.

Second, Big Viking Games argues that the system must order an object from

somewhere other than itself because “the system ‘ordering’ an object autonomously

from itself is illogical and defies the plain meaning of that term.” (Def. Op. Br. at 18.) 

Big Viking Games argues that the only part of the specification that discusses

“ordering” is in the context of the system placing an order for a real-world

product—pizza. (See ’445 patent, at 8:53-9:13.) According to Big Viking Games, this

shows that the order must be placed to a third party. The specification makes clear,

however, that purchasing real-world objects is only one example of how users may

purchase a variety of products and services. (See id. at 8:53-62 (“Alternatively, the

present invention may offer users interactive advertisements by which users can

- 13 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 13 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purchase a variety of products or services. . . . For example, in a simulation role

playing game, real world products and/orservices advertisements may be integrated in

the game’s landscape such that a user may interact with the cyber world advertisements

to transact real world products and/or services.” (emphasis added)).) Even assuming

that Big Viking Games is correct that an order for real-world pizza must be placed to

a third party, this does not mean that all orders must be for real-world products and

placed with third parties. Orders may also be filled from the inventory of the computer

managing the game. 

Accordingly, no construction of the term “ordering” is necessary.

E. “purchase” and “consideration”

The parties dispute the terms “purchase” and “consideration.” The parties

propose the following constructions. The Court’s adopted constructions are

highlighted.

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

“purchase” “To obtain using various

currency means, including

credit cards, e-cash, e-gold,

other Internet enabled currency,

and secondary monetary

sources, such as, charges to

phone or utility bill,

transferring credit on pre-paid

phone cards, or transit passes,

or through conventional

payment methods, such as

checks, money-orders or cash”

“to obtain using

consideration, i.e. real or

virtual currency or

equivalents usable for ingame transactions”

“consideration” “That which is used to make a

purchase within the game. See

above re: purchase.”

“real or virtual currency or

equivalents usable for ingame transactions”

In regards to “purchase,” the specification recites that “[u]sing the present

- 14 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 14 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

invention, participating users have the ability to ‘purchase’ these environmental

features or elements using various currency means, including credit cards, e-cash, egold, other Internet enabled currency, and secondary monetary sources, such as,

charges to phone or utility bill, transferring credit on pre-paid phone cards, or transit

passes, or through conventional payment methods, such as checks, money-orders or

cash.” (Id. at 3:11-18, 9:56-64 (emphasis added).) 

GameTek’s proposed construction of “purchase” is taken verbatim from the

claim language. Big Viking Games’s proposed construction, on the other hand,

improperly adds “virtual currency” to the term’s construction. The term “virtual

currency” is not found in the specification or claims. Big Viking Games has not shown

that “virtual currency” has an ordinary meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the art.

Big Viking Games argues that its proposed construction should be adopted

because the list of currency means laid out in the specification is not comprehensive. 

According to Big Viking Games, the use of the word “including” signifies that the

meaning of “currency” is not limited to what islisted. See Manual of Patent Examining

Procedure § 2111.03 (“The transitional term ‘comprising’, which is synonymous with

‘including,’‘containing,’ or‘characterized by,’isinclusive or open-ended and does not

exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.”). The Court agrees that the

list is not comprehensive, but this does not require that the Court adopt Big Viking

Games’s proposed construction. As GameTek acknowledges,its proposed construction

is not a comprehensive list of currency means. (Hearing Tr. [Docket No. 210], at 33;

Pl. Slides at 20.) Like the claim language, GameTek’s proposed construction uses the

term“including,” which is an open-ended term. Accordingly, the term“purchase” shall

be construed as “To obtain using various currency means, including credit cards, ecash, e-gold, other Internet enabled currency, and secondary monetary sources, such

as, chargesto phone or utility bill, transferring credit on pre-paid phone cards, or transit

passes, or through conventional payment methods, such as checks, money-orders or

- 15 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 15 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cash.”

In regards to “consideration,” the parties agree that the term “consideration” is

inextricably intertwined with the term “purchase.” (Hearing Tr. [Docket No. 210], at

39-40.) Accordingly, the term “consideration” shall be construed as “That which is

used to make a purchase within the game. See above re: purchase.”

F. “at least one user has made a commitment of consideration”

At the claim construction hearing, the parties agreed to construe the term “at

least one user has made a commitment of consideration” as “the user has indicated a

willingness to exchange consideration to purchase a selected object.” (Hearing Tr.

[Docket No. 210], at 46.) Accordingly, the Court adopts this construction.

G. “account”

The parties have agreed that (1) the account with the “account balance” in claim

element 1(c)(iii), is the same account created in claim element 1(b); (2) the account

with the “account balance” in claim element 15(e) is the same account created in claim

element 15(b); and (3) the account in claim elements 17(e) and 17(f) is the same

account created in claim element 17(c). (See Pl. Op. Br. at 12; Def. Op. Br. at 4 n.2.)

H. “permitting the at least one user to create an account for receiving

a consideration of the at least one user, the at least one user having

a set of demographics”

The parties dispute the term “permitting the at least one user to create an account

for receiving a consideration of the at least one user, the at least one user having a set

of demographics.” The parties propose the following constructions. The Court’s

adopted construction is highlighted.

///

///

///

- 16 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 16 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

“permitting the at least

one user to create an

account for receiving a

consideration of the at

least one user, the at least

one user having a set of

demographics.”

See Plaintiff’s proposed

constructions re:

“consideration,” “set of

demographics,” and

“demographics.” 

Otherwise, ordinary

meaning, no construction

necessary.

“permitting the at least

one user to create an

account for receiving a

consideration balance,

where the account

maintains two or more

types of statistical

characteristics (such as

age, sex, or income)

associated with the

user.”1

The parties agree that this claim term is comprised of narrower

terms—“account,” “consideration,” “set of demographics,” and “the at least one user

having a set of demographics”—that have been separately construed by the Court

above. Consistent with the Court’s adopted constructions discussed above, the term

“permitting the at least one user to create an account for receiving a consideration of

the at least one user, the at least one user having a set of demographics” shall be

construed as “permitting the at least one user to create an account for receiving a

consideration balance, where the account maintains two or more types of statistical

characteristics (such as age, sex, or income) associated with the user.”

I. Order of the Claim Elements

Where a method claim does not explicitly recite an order that the method steps

need to be performed in, courts determine whether the “method steps implicitly require

that they be performed in the order written” because of the plain claim language, logic,

or grammar. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342

(Fed. Cir. 2001); Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Big Viking Games originally proposed a construction that used the word

1

“storing” in place of “receiving.” Big Viking Games later agreed to use the word

“receiving” in its proposed construction after GameTek objected to “storing.” (Def.

Resp. Br. at 12.) 

- 17 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 17 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A sequence may be grammatically required, for example, where a given step refers to

something already performed in the previous step or uses the past tense to refer to

actions described in previous steps. See, e.g., Combined Sys., Inc. v. Def. Tech. Corp.

of Am., 350 F.3d 1207, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003). If the plain claim language, grammar,

or logic require that the method steps be performed in the order written, intrinsic

evidence is only reviewed to determine that there is no deviation from this

interpretation. Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1343; Mantech Envtl. Corp. v.

Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The parties dispute whether the claim elements 1(c)(i)-(c)(iii), 15(c)-(e), and

17(d)-(f) must be performed in the order they appear. Each set of claim elements will

be addressed in turn.

1. Order of Steps in Claim 1(c)

The parties dispute whether the claimelements 1(c)(i)-(c)(iii) must be performed

in the order they appear. The Court’s adopted construction is highlighted.

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

Claim element 1(c) order of claim elements:

Claim element 1(c)(ii)

must precede 1(c)(iii). 

There is no requirement

that any other cited

elements be performed in

any particular order. 

order of claim elements:

Claim elements 1(c)(i)-

(iii) must be performed in

the order they are written.

Claim 1 provides:

A method . . . using a programmed computer to effect the following steps:

. . . 

c) determining the eligibility of the at least one user to purchase at least

one of a plurality of game objects, said eligibility determining comprises

the following sub steps:

i) permitting the at least one user to select the at least one game object,

ii) setting the purchase price of the at least one game object, and 

iii) comparing the account balance of the at least one user’s consideration

- 18 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 18 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with the set price of the at least one game object and, determining if the

balance of the user’s consideration is not less than the set price,

determining the at least one user to be eligible to purchase the at least one

game object.

(’445 patent, at 11:54-12:10.)

Big Viking Games argues that as a matter of grammar and plain claim language,

claim elements 1(c)(i)-(c)(iii) must be performed in the order they are written. 

GameTek does not dispute that the element (c)(ii) precedes element (c)(iii) in Claim 1. 

However, GameTek argues that Big Viking Games’s position that element (c)(i) must

precede element (c)(ii) or (c)(iii) is erroneous. 

The Court findsthat consistent with GameTek’s proposed construction, the user

is permitted to “select” the “game object,” before, at the same time as, or after a

purchase price is set and a determination is made whether the user is eligible to

purchase the game object. Nothing in the ’445 patent requires that prices be compared

only for game objects selected by the user. A game may compare prices and accounts

prior to the purchase decision so that users can select only those game objects for

which they have sufficient consideration to purchase.

First, Big Viking Games argues that the antecedent basis for the game object in

element (c)(ii) is the game object in element (c)(i). In other words, according to Big

Viking Games, because “the at least one game object” does not exist before element

(c)(i), the purchase price of “the at least one game object” cannot be set before the

game object isselected in element (c)(i). However, elements(c)(i) and (c)(ii) both refer

to “the at least one game object.” The antecedent basis for both elements (c)(i) and

(c)(ii) is in element (c)—“at least one of a plurality of game objects.” “[T]he at least

one game object” in elements (c)(i) and (c)(ii) refer to the same game object; there is

no reason that they must be in any particular order.

Second, Big Viking Games points to two sections of the specification that it

argues support its proposed construction—column 5, lines 30-38 (“In the context of a

- 19 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 19 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

game environment advantage, the game designer controls the resources of the game”

and “[the] advantage provider can decide the nature and extent of such control based

on any number of factors such as cost”), and column 3, lines 23-25 (“the price of a

desired environment feature and/or element become[s] incrementally lower with

increased purchase of offered environment features and/or elements”). These sections

of the specification, however, do not require that the steps of claim 1(c) be performed

in order. Column 5, lines 30-38 merely notes that the advantage provider can control

game resources based on factors such as cost. Column 3, lines 23-25 relates to an

unclaimed feature in which “incentives” are provided by prices becoming incrementally

lower with increased purchases. In the latter embodiment, the only requirement is that

the price be lowered at or before the time that a subsequent purchase of the same object

is made.

Accordingly, in regards to the order of steps in claim 1, element (c)(ii) must

precede (c)(iii). There is no requirement that any other cited elements be performed in

any particular order. 

2. Order of Steps in Claim 15

The parties dispute whether the claim elements 15(c)-(e) must be performed in

the order they appear. The Court’s adopted construction is highlighted.

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

Claim elements 15(c)-(e) order of claim elements:

Claim element 15(d) must

precede 15(e). There is

no requirement that any

other cited elements be

performed in any

particular order. 

order of claim elements:

Claim elements 15(c)-(e)

must be performed in the

order they are written.

- 20 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 20 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claim 15 provides:

A method . . . using a programmed computer to effect the following steps:

. . . 

c) enabling the at least one user to select at least one of a plurality of game

objects;

d) setting the purchase price of the at least one game object;

e) comparing the account balance with the set price of the at least one

game object and, determining if the user’s account balance is not lessthan

the set price, then the at least one user is eligible to purchase the one

selected game object.

(Id. at 13:34-51.)

The parties agree that the dispute over the order of steps for claim 15 is the same

as the dispute over the order of steps for claim element 1(c), discussed above. (Pl. Op.

Br. at 24; Def. Op. Br. at 24.) Accordingly, in regards to the order of steps in claim 15,

element (d) must precede (e). There is no requirement that any other cited elements be

performed in any particular order.

3. Order of Steps in Claim 17

The parties dispute whether the claim elements 17(d)-(f) must be performed in

the order they appear. The Court’s adopted construction is highlighted.

Term GameTek’s Proposed

Construction 

Big Viking Games’s

Proposed Construction 

Claim elements 17(d)-(f) No construction

necessary because this is

an issue of infringement

rather than claim

construction. 

Nonetheless, there is no

requirement that Claim

17, elements (d), (e), and

(f) must be performed in

order. 

order of claim elements:

Claim elements 17(d)-(f)

must be performed in the

order they are written.

- 21 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 21 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claim 17 provides:

A method . . . using a programmed computer to effect the following steps:

. . . 

d) permitting the at least one user to select one or more of the plurality of

the displayed game objects, each game object having a set price;

e) determining if the at least one user has sufficient consideration in its

account to purchase the selected one game object and to provide an

indication thereof.

f) presenting to the at least one user an offer to purchase the game object

dependant upon a group of game parameters comprising the tracked

activity of the at least one user, and the indication that the one user has

sufficient consideration in its account to purchase the selected game

object at the set price[.]

(’445 patent, at 14:7-31.)

The Court findsthat claimelements 17(d)-(f) must be performed in the order that

they are written. First, claim element 17(d) requires the system to permit the user to

“select one or more of the plurality of the displayed game objects.” (Id. at 14:20-21.) 

In addition, claim element 17(d) adds that “each game object [has] a set price.” (Id. at

14:21-22.) Claim element 17(e) then determines whether the user has sufficient

consideration to purchase “the selected one game object,” and provides an indication

of whether the user has sufficient consideration. (Id. at 14:24-25.) Claim element

17(e) must follow claim element 17(d) because the game object in claim element 17(e)

has already been “selected,” as indicated by the use of the past participle. A user must

select an object (claimelement 17(d)) before the systemcan determine whether the user

has sufficient consideration to purchase the “selected” object (claim element 17(e)). 

Second, claim element 17(f) necessarily comes after claim elements 17(d) and

(e). Claim element 17(f) requires the computer to “present . . . an offer to purchase the

game object dependent upon . . . the indication that the one user has sufficient

consideration . . . to purchase the selected game object at the set price.” (Id. at 14:26-

31.) This must necessarily come after claim elements 17(d) and (e), because claim

element 17(f) specifically requires that the offer be presented “dependent upon” the

- 22 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 22 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“indication that the one user has sufficient consideration” from claim element 17(e). 

In addition, the game object must already be “selected” in claim element 17(f), which

requires it to follow claim element 17(d). 

Accordingly, claim elements 17(d)-(f) must be performed in the order they are

written.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the terms at issue shall be construed as indicated

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 12, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 23 - 12-CV-501

Case 3:12-cv-00501-BEN-RBB Document 221 Filed 02/14/14 Page 23 of 23