Articles Posted in IP Infringement

Posted

by

A patent infringement suit targeting a multiplayer, networking feature of Microsoft’s Xbox video game console was dismissed because the court found that, based on how the patent claims were written, the Xbox’s network connectivity mechanism differed from that required in the patent. This case, like many patent infringement cases, turned on the Court’s interpretation of the patent claim language and highlights the importance of the patent attorney’s wording of the patent claims. It is one thing to get a patent. It is another to get one that is commercially significant and can be viably enforced. A patent attorney who understands a range of alternatives can add significant value to a patent.

Interestingly, Sony previously settled a patent infringement suit involving the same patent relating to its PlayStation video game console.

The case, which was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleged infringement by Microsoft of  U.S. Patent No. 5,292,195, entitled “Apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located video games” (“the ‘195 Patent”). The ‘195 Patent issued way back in March 8, 1994.  The court stated:

The ‘125 Patent involves an invention that allows “for two or more players playing the same video game to compete with each other without using the same physical video game which alleviates the necessity of proximity of the players.” ‘125 Patent col. 2 ll. 39-43. The ‘125 Patent describes a system where a video game player can talk and play with a remote opponent at the same time over a telephone line.

The Court ruled that Microsoft did not infringe the asserted claims because micro-processor to modem coupling in the Microsoft Xbox was accomplished via inductive coupling, while the court found that the claims require that the components be electrically
connected.  A Special Master had recommended that the claims should be interpreted to include inductive coupling.  However, the Court did not follow the Special Master’s recommendation, holding that the Special Master had improperly relied on extrinsic evidence, rather than relying on “the ordinary meaning of [the] claim language” which, as the Court indicated “may be readily apparent even to lay judges” [quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005)].  Along with the plain meaning of the term “electrically connected”, the Court relied on the fact that the term “electrically connected” was used in the ‘195 Patent description to refer only to connections accomplished via conductive electrical wires.

Because the Court’s interpretation is a legal determination, it is subject to review on appeal. Stay tuned to this blog for further developments should an appeal proceed.

Click here for a copy of the Decision.

Posted

by

On July 23, 2010, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order denying Facebook Inc.’s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint alleging that Facebook is guilty of contributing to the copyright infringement of a video game. Judge Alsup denied Facebook’s argument that, as the Plaintiff had failed to properly allege direct infringement by its Co-Defendant, no claim against Facebook for contributory infringement could be made. A copy of the decision can be found here: Miller v Facebook

Background

The pleadings allege that Plaintiff, Daniel Miller, created the video game Boomshine in 2007 and was granted a copyright registration by the U.S. Copyright Office. Boomshine is a game in which players click on floating circles which cause them to expand resulting in the expansion of any other circles which come into contact. Miller’s second amended complaint accuses Defendant,Yao Wei Yeo, of direct infringement by arguing a similar “look and feel” between his video game, ChainRxn, and Boomshine but provides no further evidence of copying. According to the allegations in Miller’s filings, “ChainRxn copies the look and feel of Boomshine by incorporating almost every visual element of the game”. Moreover, the second amended complaint accuses Facebook of contributing to the infringement of the video game by allowing Yeo’s game to remain on its website after being notified that it infringed the copyright of Boomshine.  Miller alleges that “[a]fter defendant Yeo published ChainRxn on defendant Facebook’s website, members of the public were deceived regarding the origin of ChainRxn.”

The Court’s Denial

Facebook filed a motion for dismissal of the suit on June 21, 2010. Its argument was founded on the position that, as Miller had not properly first pled direct infringement by Yeo, he could not sustain a claim for contributory infringement by Facebook. The basis for Facebook’s argument was that Miller’s mere allegation that ChainRxn “looks and feels” identical to Boomshine without further proof of copying was insufficient to allege direct copyright infringement of Boomshine’s source code. Moreover, Facebook argued that the copyright registration Miller had obtained for the source code was limited to its literal elements and not audiovisual elements of Boomshine. Judge Alsup denied the first element of Facebook’s motion as premature noting that a “plaintiff can rarely examine the underlying source code of an accused infringing software program without resorting to discovery.” Specifically, Judge Alsup said it would be “unreasonable, if not impossible” for Miller to know with “exacting detail” how Yeo copied the Boomshine source code so early in the case. Additionally, Judge Alsup denied the second portion of Facebook’s motion by clarifying that the Court’s earlier order “did not hold that copyright protection for source code was limited to the literal elements of the work” but rather that “plaintiff’s copyright appears to be limited to the source code rather than the audiovisual aspects” and further determination is necessary to decide if the audiovisual elements of the game were also protected.

Finally, the court reminded Miller to address the disputed service of the second amended complaint on Yeo by the July 30, 2010 deadline or suffer a “potentially fatal defect” to his case.

Comments

The above action is interesting for several reasons. Platform companies like Facebook generally rely on the “safe harbor” protections the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides when an infringement claim is made for the postings of a third-party. In fact,YouTube recently obtained a favorable decision providing it with DMCA protection in a potentially billion-dollar copyright infringement suit brought by Viacom. Moreover, while the Courts may differ on copyright protection for audiovisual “screen displays” in video games, the Copyright office’s consistent position is that “a single registration is sufficient to protect the copyright in a computer program and related screen displays, including videogames, without a separate registration for the screen displays or a specific reference to them on the application for the computer program.” For further discussion you can review the Copyright office’s Circular 61

That said, this case continues to demonstrate that social networking platforms and other websites displaying user generated content must be ever vigilant or potentially face suits arguing various copyright theories. As technology advances (as well as the means of infringement) it is likely the pleading requirements will remain relatively low and defer the need to demonstrate the how, when and why of the alleged infringement until the completion of discovery. Since this will likely increase the cost of litigating these matters, Platform operators and creators of user generated content need to understand and avail themselves of copyright (and other IP) protection, enforcement techniques and available defenses.

Posted

by

In a recently filed complaint (Actus Complaint.pdf), a patent holding company has sued over a dozen major companies for alleged patent infringement. The suit alleges infringement of 4 patents that relate to virtual currency or “electronic tokens”. The patents include United States Patent No. 7,328,189; 7,249,099; 7,177,838; and 7,177,838.

The defendants in the case include Discover Financial Svcs.; Electronic Arts, Inc.; Home Depot, Inc.; Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; McDonald’s Corp.; Moneygram Int’l, Inc.; News Corp.; Recreational Equipment, Inc.; Sears Holding Corp.; Simon Property Group; Starbucks Corp.; Target Corp.; The Sports Authority, Inc.; The TJX Companies, Inc.; The Gap, Inc.; Yum! Brands, Inc.; Zynga Game Network, Inc.; ACE Cash Express, Inc.; Brinker Int’l, Inc.; and Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Given the rapidly increasing use of virtual currency and alternative forms of micropayments, it is not surprising to see more patent litigation. But patent infringement is but one legal concern when using virtual currency. A whole host of legal issues impact virtual currency. Pillsbury’s Virtual Worlds and Video Game team has prepared an advisory on legal issues with virtual currency. Virtual Currency.pdf

Posted

by

On April 8, 2010, Zynga sued Playerauctions.com for operating a website that provides an unauthorized “Secondary Market” for enabling Zynga game users to post and sell “Virtual Currency” and “Virtual Goods” allegedly in violation of Zynga’s Terms of Service. According to Zynga, its Terms of Service prohibits users from selling “Virtual Currency” or “Virtual Goods” for real-world money or anything of value outside of its games.

A recent version of the Zynga Terms of Service states:

The Service may include a virtual, in-game currency (“Virtual Currency”) including, but not limited to coins, cash, or points, that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money if you are a legal adult in your country of residence. The Service may also include virtual, in-game digital items (“Virtual Goods”) that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money or for Virtual Currency. Regardless of the terminology used, Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods may never be redeemed for “real world” money, goods or other items of monetary value from Zynga or any other party.

It further states:

Transfers of Virtual Currencies and Virtual Goods are strictly prohibited except where explicitly authorized within the Service. Outside of the game, you may not buy or sell any Virtual Currency or Virtual Goods for “real world” money or otherwise exchange items for value. Any attempt to do so is in violation of these Terms and may result in a lifetime ban from Zynga Service and possible legal action.

Zynga alleges that the Playerauctions.com has committed copyright and trademark infringement (along with false designation of origin, unfair competition and other claims) by displaying and/reproducing images and code from the games and using various Zynga trademarks with authorization.

The Complaint identifies unlawful sales in connection with Zynga’s Poker, Mafia Wars and FarmVille games. A recent review of the Playerauctions.com site showed over 750 Mafia Wars related items alone available for sale ranging in unit price from 25 cents to $900 and 84 entire “accounts” for sale ranging in asking price from $30 to $5,000 with one listed at a whopping $492,000!

Interestingly, Zynga does not specifically allege impropriety with or seek to prevent the outright sale of accounts.

Posted

by

Florida A&M University (FAMU) recently filed a law suit against the maker of a porn video that depicted multiple individuals engaging in sexual acts in a setting that allegedly represented a dorm room on the FAMU campus. FAMU claims that such association constitutes false or misleading descriptions and misrepresentations under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), federal trademark dilution under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), disparagement and injury to business reputation and trademark dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151(2009), and common law trademark infringement under Florida law.

Although this suit does not relate directly to virtual worlds, we are writing about it because this type of fact pattern commonly occurs in virtual worlds where famous brands are used in seedy portions of virtual worlds. Like this case, such uses can be actionable to prevent brand disparagement and tarnishment and other harms.

FAMU claiims that the defendant used FAMU’s trademarks in the registered mark “FAMU”, its tradename, “Rattlers,” and its orange and green color scheme, which was chosen to represent Florida’s major industry (citrus). FAMU alleges that it has produced and sold merchandise bearing the “FAMU” mark since 1953 and the “Rattlers” mark since 1985.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant RK operates the website “daredorm.com,” which depicts individuals engaging in sexually explicit activities in what appears to be dorm rooms at various college campuses throughout the United States and charges a fee to internet consumers who wish to view the videos depicted on its “daredorm.com” website.

The Complaint alleges that on or about March 1, 2010, RK posted a full-length video entitled “BigRattler77” on its “daredorm.com” website depicting no less than eight (8) individuals engaging in multiple acts of sexual intercourse in what is intended to appear to be a FAMU dorm room, that the video contains several visual depictions of and oral references to the FAMU and “Rattlers” marks and depicts the orange and green color scheme in connection with the “FAMU” and “Rattlers” marks. The Complaint further alleges that the caption for the “BigRattler77″ video states that it was filmed ‘at a historically black college in Florida” and that the individuals were FAMU students and contains derogatory and highly offensive racial innuendo and visual depictions of gang signs purportedly associated with FAMU.

FAMU complains that “BigRattler77” is a transparent attempt to trade on the good name and identity of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and its marks by wrongly insinuating that its students routinely engage in the debasing and degrading behavior depicted therein, that it is likely to deceive, confuse and mislead prospective purchasers and viewers of the video into believing that the video was produced, authorized or is in some manner associated with FAMU.

FAMU seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent such use.

The caption of the case is Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University Board of Trustees v. RK Netmedia Inc. et al., No. 10-0100, complaint filed (N.D. Fla., Tallahassee Div. Mar. 16, 2010).

Posted

by

On April 28, 2010, a social game developer Crowdstar sued Wonderhill for copyright infringement based on similarities between Wonderhill’s “Aquarium Life” and Crowdstar’s “Happy Aquarium”. While copyright does not protect ideas (such as the idea for a fish-based game) it does protect expression of the idea. If this case should make it to court, it will provide an interesting test case for game developers that have developed social games that have been “cloned,” which tends to be quite common in the space.

Happy Aquarium is generally acknowledged as one of the first, if not the original, fish care-based social games. Happy Aquarium and Aquarium Life are not the only aquarium games. But in its complaint, Crowdstar alleges an especially high level of correspondence in the user interface, game play and other features between Happy Aquarium and Aquarium Life as being the impetus for the suit.

Starting with a relatively obscure game from 1 year old Wonderhill may increase the potential for a quick settlement. But is this a one off lawsuit or is Crowdstar chasing a minnow while it waits for a bigger fish to fry? Check back and we will keep you updated.

One interesting aspect of the complaint relates to the relief sought – or more accurately what is not sought. In the U.S., statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, the potential for recovery of legal costs and attorneys’ fees, and certain legal presumptions regarding ownership and validity are available to a copyright holder for works that were timely registered with the Copyright Office. These benefits are typically available for works that were registered prior to infringement or within three months of first publication. It is notable that the Crowdstar copyright registration at issue was only recently registered (registration no. TX 7-117-794, registered March 25, 2010), while Happy Aquarium itself was published in September, 2009. Perhaps as a result of this, the relief sought by Crowdstar does not include statutory damages or recovery of legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

But, regardless of the result here, there can be no doubt that a game developer’s leverage over a clone can be increased significantly with a timely copyright registration For more on this topic see our advisory on the benefits of timely filing copyright registrations.

Posted

by

Worlds.com has reportedly settled its patent infringement lawsuit with NCsoft. The terms remain confidential and as of this morning neither company has a press release on its website. Worlds.com filed the suit on Christmas eve in 2008 after rattling its patent saber months earlier. To some, it is surprising the case lasted this long, due to the extensive amount of prior art that surfaced after the suit was announced.

In March 2009, Worlds.com CEO Tom Kidrin also boldly proclaimed that if the litigation was successful it would also sue other industry leaders. If Kidrin remains true to his word, we will likely know soon if they deemed the litigation successful.

Posted

by

In a growing trend, another patent infringement lawsuit was recently filed against nearly two dozen companies involved in virtual worlds, video games, social networks and other websites. The plaintiff, Balthaser Online, appears to provide a web application that enables users to create Adobe Flash animations and interfaces for inclusion in websites. The patent in suit is U.S. Patent Number 7,000,180, entitled “Methods, systems and processes for the design and creation of rich-media applications via the Internet.”

In September 2009 the court split Balthaser Online Inc.’s patent infringement lawsuit against Friendster Inc., Nike Inc. and two dozen other defendants by sending more than 20 of them to a California federal court and keeping just four in the Texas federal court where the case originated. Click here for more recent developments on the procedural motions in the Balthaser Patent Infringement Case.

This and other cases evidence a growing need for virtual worlds, video games, social network companies to take proactive steps to prevent or deter patent infringement suits. Click here for a prior alert on the Worlds.com patent infringement case and elements of a comprehensive IP strategy to prevent or deter patent infringement suits.