Source: http://patentarcade.com/tag/u-s-district
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:54:26+00:00

Document:
This one has me a little perplexed. TQP Development sued Big Fish Games for patent infringement of USP 5,412,730. The ‘730 patent appears to cover a technique for sending encrypted data across a communications link. While developed during the time of modems (patent was filed in 1992), the claims do not recite a modem, but rather refer a transmitter and receiver, generally. The other interesting thing here is that the patent would appear to expire on May 2, 2012, in just under a month, so I suspect there was a little bit of racing to the courthouse to get this case filed before it expires. Not sure what precipitated the particular choice of defendant, though. That is, why sue BFG? The patent is not directed to games, so the choice just seems odd to me. Oh well, to each their own. We will nonetheless track the case and see what happens. The case is TQP Development v. Big Fish Games, docket 2:12-cv-00194, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed April 5, 2012.
decrypting the data sent over said link at said receiver in accordance with said second sequence.
2. The method as set forth in claim 1 further including the step of altering said predetermined number of blocks each time said new key value in said first and said second sequences is produced.
Ok, now it makes more sense… they’re suing EVERYONE! Filed a half dozen or so lawsuits, and a game company just happens to be one of the targets. Given the subject matter of the patent, we’re not tracking this case any longer.
Regardless of what statutory category (“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes. Here, it is clear that the invention underlying both claims 2 and 3 is a method for detecting credit card fraud, not a manufacture for storing computer-readable information. This case is thus similar to In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982). In Abele, claim 5 of the patent at issue recited “[a] method of displaying data” comprising the steps of “calculating the difference” between two numbers and “displaying the value.” Id. at 908. The court concluded that claim 5 was not directed to patent eligible subject matter because it claimed an abstract idea. Id. However, claim 7 was argued to be different because it recited an “[a]pparatus for displaying data” comprising “means for calculating the differences” between two numbers and “means for displaying the value.” Id. at 909 (emphases added). Though claim 7 literally invoked an “[a]pparatus,” the court treated it as a method claim for the purpose of its § 101 analysis. Due to its “broad” and “functionally-defined” nature, the court found that treating claim 7 as an apparatus claim would “exalt form over substance since the claim is really to the method or series of functions itself.” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court placed “the burden . . . on the applicant to demonstrate that the claims [were] truly drawn to [a] specific apparatus distinct from other apparatus[es] capable of performing the identical functions.” Id. (citation omitted).
In the present case, CyberSource has not met its burden to demonstrate that claim 2 is “truly drawn to a specific” computer readable medium, rather than to the underlying method of credit card fraud detection. To be sure, after Abele, we have held that, as a general matter, programming a general purpose computer to perform an algorithm “creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.” In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994). But we have never suggested that simply reciting the use of a computer to execute an algorithm that can be performed entirely in the human mind falls within the Alappat rule. Thus, despite its Beauregard claim format, under Abele, we treat claim 2 as a process claim for patent-eligibility purposes.
The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.
The court went on to contrast this case to SiRF Tech. and Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft, where in each case the claims at issue could not have been performed wholly within a human mind, and were upheld as patent eligible under 101. There is much to learn here.
Here is the full opinion: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1358.pdf. I’m sure many people will be commenting on this case.
As comics often serve as sources for developing video games, we note with some interest a ruling by the second circuit on Friday, June 24, 2011, concerning whether the 2008 film You Don’t Mess with the Zohan infringed a comic book creator’s copyright in his story. Robert Cabell filed suit in 2009 alleging that his comic character, Jayms Blonde, a gay ex-US Navy SEAL wielding an Uzi disguised as a hair dryer, was the unauthorized basis for the film’s Zohan character, a former Israeli counterterrorism agent who leaves the Mossad to become a hairdresser.
Campbell tried to prove that Adam Sandler, the film’s star and co-writer, had access to his work because they were MySpace friends. The judge found the submitted evidence, a screenshot of a MySpace page displaying an Adam Sandler profile picture, to be unconvincing as many MySpace users frequently put up publicly available images to impersonate celebrities. In addition, Sandler said in a sworn declaration that he never had a MySpace account. Judd Apatow, who wrote the screenplay, also swore that he finished the screenplay in July 2000, well before Cabell’s comic was published in 2002.
Case Update:After surviving Apple’s motion to dismiss, on September 8, 2009, this case was sent to ADR. After several months of mediation, this case was fully and confidentially settled as to defendant Apple, on May 18, 2010. The case was dismissed with prejudice as to defendant Apple on July 21, 2010. As to the other two defendants named in the complaint, they never responded, and default judgments against them were entered on September 28, 2010.Original Post:A puzzle inventor has filed suit against Apple for allegedly using one of his puzzles as the basis for an iPhone application without authorization.
The complaint alleges that the ParkingLot application, introduced on January 1, 2008 and now one of the iPhone’s best-selling apps, copies Rubin’s puzzle “in all material respects.” Both Lots of Luck and ParkingLot are restrictive movement sliding block puzzles set in a parking lot, the complaint states. In both games, players work to move the arrangement of cars in a grid, or “parking lot,” to free a main target car so it can exit the lot.
Rubin is requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin Apple from infringing the copyright, thus preventing publishing, selling, marketing, or otherwise disposing of copies in any format of the game. Rubin is also seeking damages from the infringement to account for gains, profits and advantages that Apple received through its use of ParkingLot.
As another piece to the puzzle (pun intended?), the complaint also names Quetouch.com as a party of interest. A quick search of Quetouch.com revealed that Quetouch is the developer of ParkingLot. According to its website, ParkingLot was “[i]nspired by Mr. Yoshigahara’s invention.” After further investigation, it turns out Mr. Nobuyuki ‘Nob’ Yoshigahara, a famous puzzle columnist from Japan, was the inventor of the game Rush Hour. Both Lots of Luck and Rush Hour require a user to move car pieces backwards and forwards to clear a path for the target car to exit the grid, but Rubin’s game takes the form of a picture puzzle while Rush Hour is a physical version of the sliding block puzzle. Rush Hour, produced and marketed by Thinkfun (formerly Binary Arts), was supposedly created by Nob in the late 1970’s and introduced into the U.S. in 1996. Nob commercially licensed Rush Hour and other puzzle designs to Thinkfun. Click here to see the design patent issued to Thinkfun in 1998 regarding Rush Hour.
The blog Puzzling iPhone shows that there are many apps besides ParkingLot that are restricted movement sliding block puzzles. Perhaps Rubin focused on ParkingLot because it has earned more revenue as one of the most popular apps and that may result in him receiving larger monetary damages. The blog also mentions the issue of sliding block iPhone app developers not acknowledging the original designer of the puzzles the games are based on. But in its push for attributing credit to the real creator of the game, the site refers only to Rush Hour and Nob, not Rubin’s picture puzzle. So where did the idea for a puzzle based on maneuvering a trapped car out of a parking lot truly first originate?
All of this might not even matter, depending on where you draw the line between an idea and an expression of that idea. Copyrights only provide protection for actual expression of an idea; not to the underlying idea itself. This is rooted in the First Amendment and freedom of expression. If there was any copying, a court will likely consider whether the alleged infringer actually copied artwork and graphics, or did the alleged infringer merely use the IDEA of a sliding block puzzle in the theme of a parking lot, yet create new artwork and source code to implement that IDEA? Also keep in mind that copyrights provide NO protection for functional or utilitarian aspects of works, so the plaintiff will have a hard time relying on any similarity of rules, placement of vehicles, possible moves, etc., because those are likely to be considered functional considerations.
Read the full complaint, which includes an example of Rubin’s puzzle, here.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. Apogee Software, Ltd.
United States District Court for S.D.N.Y.
Case Update:This case was dismissed with prejudice on May 28, 2010, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement by the parties. The parties agreed to bear their own costs of litigation, and not to seek any costs or sanctions.
Original Post:Take-Two is a publisher, developer and distributor of video game software, hardware and accessories for PCs and game consoles including the Grand Theft Auto series.
Apogee, also known as 3D Realms, develops and publishes video games such as the Duke Nukem franchise.
In 2000, Take-Two entered an agreement giving it publishing and distribution rights to Duke Nukem Forever (DNF), a game that began development in 1997. Take-Two claims to have paid $12 million for those rights. Take-Two and Apogee formed another agreement in 2007 under which Take-Two advanced $2.5 million to Apogee to aid in development. According to Take-Two, the agreement guaranteed the game would be done by 2012, otherwise the advance would immediately become due.
In early 2009, Take-Two informed Apogee it wanted to exercise an option to develop a console version of DNF for Xbox 360 and wanted Apogee to do that development. Apogee insisted that Take-Two provide the funding for the project, but Take-Two was wary of putting more money into development and so proposed various funding/development milestones. Apogee rejected the proposal and negotiations came to a standstill.
Take-Two claims Apogee consistently gave assurances of near completion but then shut down its studio, halted development on DNF and laid off its staff on May 6, 2009 without Take-Two’s approval. Take-Two further alleges that Apogee has sufficient funds to cover its outstanding obligations in an off-shore account.
In response to Take-Two’s suit, Apogee filed an answer and counterclaim on June 19. In its answer, Apogee states the development of DNF was largely self-funded and that the company invested $20 million of its own money. Apogee claims DNF had no deadline for completion. According to the answer, the option to develop DNF for Xbox 360 only becomes exercisable after the release of the PC version which hasn’t occurred, so Take-Two allegedly has no right to the source code until the game is completed. Apogee’s answer also mentions that Take-Two’s advance would be paid back with royalties Apogee would receive from a new Duke Nukem-based game supposedly also in development by another developer and due by 2010. Apogee claims Take-Two knew for weeks that the DNF team would be laid off if a funding agreement wasn’t reached.
Apogee brought a counterclaim against Take-Two for breach of contract. Apogee claims that in the 2007 agreement, Take-Two agreed to hire a third-party developer to create a new game based on the Duke Nukem franchise (“Duke Begins”). Apogee retained development approval rights, including right to approve the development schedule. Apogee’s counterclaim echoes Take-Two’s complaint in that Take-Two was entitled to royalties from Duke Begins to recoup the advance it paid. Apogee claims Take-Two halted the third-party developer’s work on Duke Begins indefinitely in April 2009 in order to delay its release, limiting Apogee’s ability to pay back Take-Two’s advance on time. The counterclaim alleges that Take-Two is “taking such actions with a goal of pressuring Apogee to sell the Duke Nukem franchise rights to Take-Two for less than their true value.” Apogee is seeking monetary damages.
So it appears that twelve years after first announcing the development of Duke Nukem Forever, the game still faces many hurdles and may never be completed. Still, in Apogee’s answer it alleges “that it has continually worked on the development of the DNF for many years, and continues to do so” – signaling that development is ongoing, but with only the few DNF team members remaining. Given that Wired News created the Vaporware Lifetime Achievement Award exclusively for DNF, maybe fans shouldn’t hold their collective breath.
It’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out and whether DNF or Duke Begins will ever come to fruition. We’ll keep you posted.
The case was initially filed in state court in the Supreme Court of New York on May 12, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 29.
Read Take-Two’s complaint here and Apogee’s counterclaim here.
Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Playdom, Inc.
This case was dismissed on November 18, 2010. On January 8, 2010, the court referred this case to mediation. After several months in ADR, Zynga filed for voluntary dismissal of the case under FRCP 41(a). Rule 41(a)(1) allows for the plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
We recently wrote about Zynga, the developer of online social games, bringing a claim in the beginning of June against John Does 1-5 because of the defendants’ use of a domain name that allegedly infringed on Zynga’s trademark. Zynga has filed a similar suit, this time against Playdom for trademark infringement of one of Zynga’s most popular games, Mafia Wars. Playdom is also a social gaming company with its game Mobsters being the top game on MySpace.
According to the complaint, on June 12, 2009, one of Zynga’s employees came across an advertisement on Facebook that was marketing Playdom’s game Mobsters using the Mafia Wars trademark. The advertisement in controversy says in large text: “Like Mafia Wars?” and beneath that shows a picture of a gangster with small text saying: “Click here to play Mobsters. Its [sic] got henchmen, mini games, message boards and sophisticated style.” The complaint states that the ad doesn’t display the Playdom name or trademark and doesn’t make clear whether the ad is for Mobsters or Mafia Wars. If a user clicks anywhere on the ad, including on the name Mafia Wars, a window opens to install the Mobsters game, but nowhere is the Playdom name or trademark shown. Zynga apparently contacted Playdom after learning of the ad and asked them to stop using the Mafia Wars trademark. Playdom changed the ad to say “Like Mafia Games?” for some period of time but then changed it back to the original and has refused to take it down.
Zynga alleges that the ambiguity of the ad may cause users confusion about which game is being advertised and may lead users to believe that Zynga endorses or sponsors Playdom. The complaint states that Playdom has intentionally acted to deceive the public and divert business away from Zynga. Zynga claims relief for Trademark Infringement, False or Misleading Designation of Origin, and False Advertising under the Lanham Act as well as False Advertising and Unlawful Business Practices under the California Business & Professions Code. Zynga is seeking an injunction to stop Playdom’s use of its trademark, “corrective advertising to dispel the confusion” created by use of the trademark, and a monetary award for lost profits and Playdom’s “ill-gotten” gains.
Nintendo of America (NOA) has filed suit against Daniel Man Tik Chan and Inspire Electronics for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
NOA is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Nintendo Co. Ltd. responsible for the marketing and sale of Nintendo products in the Western hemisphere and for enforcing Nintendo’s intellectual property rights worldwide (except Japan).
According to the complaint Daniel Man Tik Chan is the owner, President or CEO of the other defendant Inspire Electronics and does business as Inspire Technologies and Inspiretech Electronics as well as on the websites http://www.dselite.com/, http://www.thedsdeals.com/, and http://www.blogger.com/www.inspiretech.com.
NOA alleges that the defendant sells devices “designed to circumvent the technological security measures built into” Nintendo’s DS handheld video game systems. The accused devices, referred to in the complaint as “Game Copiers” are “commonly used to play illegally downloaded pirated copies of Nintendo DS video games on the Nintendo DS.” The Nintendo DS is Nintendo’s popular dual-screen handheld portable video game system featuring a clamshell design with two LCD screens inside, the bottom one a touchscreen.
The complaint states that Nintendo is the target of a lot of intellectual property piracy because of the immense popularity of its games and systems. In addition to registering its intellectual property rights, the company builds protections into its systems and software. The Nintendo DS contains design-based protection in that the system will only play game cartridges that fit, with a certain size and matching electrical components. Nintendo also has a technological security measure where commands are exchanged between the system and game card inserted into the system. Copyrighted programs are repeatedly accessed and copied during the use of the system. So even if the game card fits, passing the design-based measure, if the game card doesn’t have the software necessary to pass (or circumvent) the technological security measure, the game can’t be played.
The defendants’ accused devices consist of two parts: 1) the game card itself (referred to as the “Game Copier Card”), which substantially matches the DS cartridges so it passes the design-based measure, and 2) a portable memory device (or instructions to purchase one) that can hold hundreds of illegally pirated DS games that can be inserted into the Game Copier Card for unauthorized play that passes the second measure. When the Game Copier Card is used as instructed by the defendants, Nintendo’s trademark appears on the screen. NOA alleges this may confuse users into thinking they are using an authorized copy of the game.
On June 1, 2009, NOA alerted defendants that they were infringing on NOA’s IP rights and ordered them to cease their infringing operations, but the defendants failed to respond.
(1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(C) is marketed by that person or another, acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Trademark InfringementNOA alleges that the defendants violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (a) because they cause the Nintendo trademark to appear on the DS without Nintendo’s authorization. The complaint says the defendants violate § 1114 because they used a “reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of NOA’s registered trademark in commerce which is likely to cause confusion or to deceive. The defendants allegedly violate § 1125 (a) because use of the trademark is a false or misleading representation, likely to cause confusion or deceive the user as to the origin or approval of the goods provided.
Unfair CompetitionNintendo also alleges that the defendants have willfully and persistently violated the California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
Nintendo is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and monetary damages.
Prime Table Games, LLC v. National Table Games Corp.
United States District Court for S.D. Miss.
On October 7, 2009, Prime Table filed a notice for dismissal of the case under FRCP 41(a)(1). Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case National Table Games had not responded to Prime Table’s suit with any court filings before Prime Table filed the voluntary dismissal. Based on the amount of time between the lawsuit being filed and dismissed, the parties likely started settlement discussions immediately after the case was filed, and Prime Table Games kept agreeing to delay the deadline for National Table Games to file its Answer to the Complaint in view of ongoing settlement discussions.
Prime Table Games is the creator and marketer of gambling games that are generally intended for use in casinos but can also be played in other formats such as video and remote games. Prime owns U.S. Patent No.
We’ll continue to monitor the case and keep you posted.

References: v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1114
 § 1125
 v.