Source: http://patentarcade.com/tag/musicgames
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:13:51+00:00

Document:
On July 5, Guitar Apprentice filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice that has ended litigation started earlier in April. An order of dismissal was signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on July 12, 2012. It has not been released whether the two parties have reached a settlement agreement or not.
Guitar Apprentice sued Ubisoft on April 5, 2012, in the Western District of Tennessee for patent infringement of USP 8,119,896. Court docket 2:12-cv-02265-SHM-dkv. The ‘896 patent is titled “Media system and method of progressive musical instruction.” Ubisoft is the publisher of Rocksmith, a game I must admit I LOVE.
in association with successive iterations of the musical performance, incrementing a duration of the second mode and decrementing a duration of the first mode.
The ‘896 patent was only filed in October 2010, claiming priority to a provisional application file June 30, 2010, so I suspect there is going to be a validity fight based on any prior art out there. For example, I’ve previously posted regarding Guitar Star and Guitar Rising, which Wikipedia (as accurate as it may be) indicates had a public playable demo at Independent Games Conference West on Nov. 5, 2009. I’m not sure of the veracity of this next part, but Wikipedia claims that Rocksmith is the direct commercial result of Guitar Rising.
We will track the case and keep you posted.
Plaintiffs Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. and Viacom Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. (“Defendants”) respectfully inform the Court that they have executed a binding and enforceable Settlement Term Sheet. The parties are currently working to execute a formal settlement agreement. The parties thus respectfully inform the Court that they expect to be able to provide another status report in 90 days.
Looks like they have come to some agreement in this case. Still no word whether the sister case, Konami v. Harmonix, is affected or not.
Case Update: Konami and Harmonix AGREE on something!
Could a settlement be in the works?
Case Update: No Doubt v. Activision Publishing Inc.
Activision has responded in federal court to a lawsuit originally filed in California state court by No Doubt over Activision’s use of the band’s likeness in “Band Hero.” According to Activision, the case implicates federal copyright law, and thus federal court (rather than state court) is the proper place for the litigation.
Previously, No Doubt sued Activision alleging, among other things, that Activision improperly used digital representations of the band members in unauthorized ways in making “Band Hero,” such as the way that the band members sing and dance in-game.
Now, in responding, Activision is denying all accusations of wrongdoing and arguing that all uses of No Doubt’s likeness are within the licensing contracts obtained from the band before the game’s release. Interestingly, there are also allegations that No Doubt’s contract with Activision does not include certain limits on the scope of the license that the licensing contracts of other artists include.
We will continue to follow this case.
Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., along with a host of game retailers, is asking a court in Tennessee to resume proceedings in a patent suit brought by Gibson Guitar Corporation over the “Guitar Hero” line of video games.
Shortly after the suit was filed, it was stayed (e.g., placed on hold) because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) had decided to open a reexamination proceeding to reconsider the validity of the patent. It is common for courts to stay cases pending reexamination, since the outcome of the reexamination can alter the patent’s scope (or render it invalid altogether).
This change was made after the PTO rejected the original claim as being the same as another U.S. patent (Zimmerman, U.S. Patent No. 5,488,196, entitled “Electronic Musical Re-Performance and Editing System”). The patentee argued that the Zimmerman patent did not show a musical instrument adapted for “making musical sounds” and “generating an instrument audio signal …” as recited in the new claim 1. The PTO agreed, and indicated that it will be issuing the reexamined patent with the new claim language.
Harmonix feels that the Guitar Hero game does not have the kind of “musical instrument” that will be required by the new claim 1. In its motion asking the court to lift the stay, Harmonix indicates that once the stay is lifted, it will file a motion for summary judgment that the Guitar Hero game does not infringe on this basis.
Harmonix also indicated that it will offer a second basis for summary judgment of non-infringement. That second basis comes from a California court’s ruling in another case involving Gibson and Activision, makers of the “Rock Band” game. In that case, the California court concluded that the Gibson patent simply did not cover interactive video games, and Harmonix will ask the Tennessee court to make a similar ruling.
So now we wait and see if/when the parties take the stage again. The motion to lift the stay seems likely to be granted, since the PTO reexamination proceedings are ending. Once the stay is lifted, we will likely see Harmonix’s summary judgment motion, and that may well signal the conclusion of this case. As a caveat, though, the patentee also added a number of new claims to the patent in the reexamination process, and some of those new claims don’t have the “musical instrument” language quoted in claim 1. It remains to be seen whether those new claims become the new center of attention going forward.
The case is Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., No. 3:08-0279 (M.D. Tenn.), and we’ll keep you posted as we learn more.
Not surprising in view of the court’s claim construction that heavily favored Activision, it appears that Gibson and Activision have settled this case. Judge Pfaelzer of the District Court for the Central District of California, on April 17, 2009, entered an ORDER RE DISMISSAL. Activision and Gibson filed a Notice of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice, in response to which the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that is cannot be refiled, and the case is CLOSED. While details of the settlement are unknown, I’m willing to bet heavily that the settlement favors Activision. Gibson would have had a herculean task in trying to convince the judge or an appellate court to overturn the Markman order construing the claims with respect to musical instruments. If I find out details of the settlement, I will update this post. We’re otherwise removing this one from the tracker list, and we’re done.
1. A method for providing realistic interaction by a player with a music-based video game using a game controller simulating a guitar and having a strum bar and a plurality of fret buttons, the method comprising: a) displaying to a player first target musical data associated with a musical composition; b) receiving first music performance input from the player comprising activation of a first one of a plurality of fret buttons and a strum bar; c) displaying to a player second target musical data associated with the musical composition, the second target musical data visually indicating to a player that the musical event represented by the second target musical data is amenable to a hammer-on technique; [and] d) receiving second music performance input from the player consisting essentially of activation of a second one of a plurality of fret buttons.
c) displaying to a player second target musical data associated with the musical composition, the second target musical data visually indicating to a player that the musical event represented by the second target musical data is amenable to a pull-off technique; [and] d) receiving second music performance input from the player consisting essentially of deactivation of one of a plurality of fret buttons.
The lawsuit is Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. et al. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd et. al., Case No. 1:09-cv-10206-RWZ, U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. We will continue to monitor the lawsuit.
You know, I’ve been waiting for over a year since I first heard about Guitar Rising, a Guitar Hero style video game that you can play with a REAL guitar. It seems to be the holy grail of interactivity–if you win the game, you have ACTUAL SKILLS you can use in real life to play an instrument. But it never seems to come to fruition. As of this morning, Guitar Rising’s web site still hasn’t changed or been updated to give us any glimmer of hope that a release is forthcoming.
Well it seems someone has now beaten them to the punch: Disney. Yes, THAT Disney. Disney’s Guitar Star will be directed towards tweens at first, but if you can really play it with any guitar, then I might just pick up a copy myself and plug in my own axe. The software with a bundled 3/4 length guitar will be about $200, and available starting summer ’09, but at least its a start!
Either way, Disney has the money to take a license or defend a lawsuit, so hopefully this product will actually see the light of day!
As previously reported, Gibson asserts that Activision’s Guitar Hero franchise infringes on some Gibson patents. Gibson’s patent claims a “musical instrument” that produces an “instrument audio signal.” Naturally, in view of Guitar Hero only useing a controller SHAPED like a musical instrument, and only producing inputs based on button presses, construction of these terms is critical to this case. Well the claim construction order is in.
Activision proposes a much narrower construction. It would define “musical instrument” as a “traditional musical instrument,” though Activision never provides a coherent definition of “traditional.” Under Activision’s construction, an “instrument audio signal” must be both “audible” and representative of the sounds made by the instrument.
The Court held that the patent requires that a “musical instrument” must be capable of (1) making “musical sounds,” (“musical sounds that would be made . . . by a specific musical instrument”); and (2) either directly, or indirectly through an interface device, producing an instrument audio signal representative of those sounds. (“musical instruments which either directly, or indirectly through an interface device, will produce electrical audio signals”). The Court also determined that the patent establishes that the two requirements are distinct; and, in particular, that the instrument must be capable of making musical sounds independent of the mechanism that outputs the instrument audio signal.
Unless Gibson can get this claim construction overturned, or unless they can prove that a Guitar Hero controller makes ACTUAL SOUND, this case appears to be effectively over.
Konami Digital Entertainment Co. v. Harmonix Music Systems, Inc.
Summary by Steve Chang, Esq.
If you build it, they will come. The tagline from Kevin Costner’s baseball film “Field of Dreams” seems appropriate to describe patent litigation. If the industry builds a successful product type, in this case, music-based rhythm games, then competitors will inevitably jockey for position. Patents, being a quintessential tool for protecting innovative market space, are a classic approach to this jockeying.
This jockeying took another step forward this week when Konami, makers of the upcoming Rock Revolution® musical group rhythm game, filed suit against Harmonix, makers of the popular Rock Band® musical group rhythm game, accusing Harmonix of infringing three of Konami’s patents.
Perhaps because Konami has already established itself in the general rhythm game space, with the popular Dance Dance Revolution® and Karaoke Revolution® series of games, Konami appears to have entered the musical group rhythm game space with patents in mind, filing early patent applications on its concepts, and the three in suit are directed to fairly straightforward elements of such games.
The first, U.S. Patent No. 6,390,923, is entitled “Music Playing Game Apparatus, Performance Guiding Image Display Method, and Readable Storage Medium Storing Performance Guiding Image Forming Program,” and generally appears (reading claim 10 of this patent) directed to dividing the game play screen into sections for different instruments, displaying instruction patterns for each instrument, and outputting a sound corresponding to operation of the instrument. Figure 15 from the ‘923 patent shows an example screen.
The second, U.S. Patent No. 6,425,822, is entitled “Music Game Machine with Selectable Controller Inputs,” and (from a short read of claim 1) appears directed to setting different difficulty modes by restricting the number of instrument buttons that will be used to play the game. The cover figure of the ‘822 patent shows an example of changing modes.
Of course, the lawsuit will have to resolve the details of the proper scope of these patents, and Harmonix will certainly seek to challenge the patents’ validity (the patents seem to be based on applications filed as early as 1998). Updates will follow as the case progresses. Formal interpretation of the patent will require a more thorough legal analysis of the patent and its history. The summaries here are just from my initial read.
NOTE: Formal interpretation of the patents will require a more thorough legal analysis of the patent and its history. The initial summaries here should not be construed as formal legal opinions of any kind. Copies of the patents in suit (6,390,923, 6,425,822, and 6,645,067) are available for free from the USPTO web site or from Google patent search.
The re-performance of a song for use in a video game pursuant to a non-exclusive synchronization license does not, without more, violate the original artists’ right of publicity, even if the artists are referenced, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held Jan. 22 (Romantics v. Activision Publishing Inc., E.D. Mich., No. 07-14969, 1/22/08).Activision recorded a new version of the song for use within Guitar Hero. When players encountered the song, it came with the subtitle “as made famous by the Romantics.” The Romantics said that this was a violated their right of publicity, was unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and constituted unfair competition. The court disagreed.Read more here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.