Supercell Oy (Petitioner)
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00029 / U.S. Patent 9,636,583
`Case PGR2018-00047 / U.S. Patent 9,770,659
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Wednesday, June 19, 2019
`
`1:00 PM (EDT), Courtroom B
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 1
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00029 / U.S. Patent 9,636,583
`Case PGR2018-00047 / U.S. Patent 9,770,659
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Wednesday, June 19, 2019
`
`1:00 PM (EDT), Courtroom B
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 1
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`All Challenged Claims are Valid
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The Challenged Claims Satisfy Alice Step Two
`
`• The Challenged Claims Have Sufficient Written Description
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Definite
`
`PGR2018-00029
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 26, at 16-75;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 35, at 1-24.
`
`PGR2018-00047
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 20, at 16-81;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 29, at 1-25.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 2
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• U.S. 9,636,583 – claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`112(1), 112(2)
`
`• U.S. 9,770,659 – claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`112(1), 112(2)
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 3
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`‘583 Patent – Claim 1
`
`PGR2018-00029
`Ex. 1001, 9:11-40.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 4
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`‘659 Patent – Claim 1
`
`PGR2018-00047
`Ex. 1001, 10:25-50.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 5
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of Both Challenged Patents
`
`PGR2018-00029 -Ex. 1001, 9:11-40.
`
`PGR2018-00047 -Ex. 1001, 10:25-50
`.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 6
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`• The challenged patents identify and address problems with known prior
`art card games.
`
`-029: Paper 26, at 2-9; Ex. 1001, 1:28-44.
`
`-047: Paper 20, at 2-9; Ex. 1001, 1:30-50.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 7
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 3, 12.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 8
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Are Patentable Under the Revised Guidance
`
`• The challenged claims do not fall into any of the
`three groupings:
`– Mathematical concepts
`– Certain methods of organizing human activity
`– Mental processes
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 2-5.
`-047: Paper 29, at 2-5.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 9
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in Prior Art Card Games
`
`• The “claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in
`order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`•
`
`“It is this challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer
`in the context of the Internet” that the challenged claims address. See
`id. at 1258.
`
`•
`
`“…these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems,
`resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Core
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`-029: Paper 26, at 22-27.
`-047: Paper 20, at 22-28.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 10
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Petitioner Changed The Alleged Abstract Idea
`
`Petition:
`“The ‘583 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of Displaying a Video Game
`Based on Stored Panel Information.” Paper 1, at 21.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`“The ‘583 Patent Recites an Abstract ‘Way of Managing a Game and
`Playing a Game.” Paper 33, at 9.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 5.
`-047: Paper 29, at 5.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 11
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Combine Improved Gameplay and Visual Effect
`
`-029: Declaration of Mr. Crane, Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 23, 29.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 6.
`-047: Paper 29, at 6.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 12
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Recite A Practical Application
`
`-047: Declaration of Mr. Crane, Ex. 2002 ¶ 29.
`-029: Paper 35, at 5-7.
`-047: Paper 29, at 5-7.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 13
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`Ancora – USPN 6,441,941
`[1a] selecting a program residing
`in the volatile memory,
`
`‘583 Patent
`[1b] a panel selection function of
`selecting one or more panels to
`be disposed in one or more
`divisions of a game display
`screen including a display region
`formed by the divisions, from
`the first panel database and the
`second panel database;
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 14
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘583 Patent
`[1e] the data storage function
`further stores points set for the
`first user, which are decreased by
`disposing a panel,
`
`Ancora – USPN 6,441,941
`[1b] using an agent to set up a
`verification structure in the
`erasable, non-volatile memory of
`the BIOS, the verification
`structure accommodating data
`that includes at least one license
`record,
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 15
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘583 Patent
`[1f] the panel selection function
`selects a panel from the first
`panel database according to the
`points set for the first user,
`
`Ancora – USPN 6,441,941
`[1c] verifying the program using
`at least the verification structure
`from the erasable non-volatile
`memory of the BIOS, and
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 16
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘583 Patent
`[1h] the panel layout function
`disposes the panel selected by
`the panel selection function in a
`target division when the panel is
`allowed to be disposed in the
`target division.
`
`Ancora – USPN 6,441,941
`[1d] acting on the program
`according to the verification.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 17
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘659 Patent
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1a] a panel selection function of
`[1a] a display screen, the
`receiving a selection by the first
`computing device being
`user, the selection being for one
`configured to display on the
`or more panels indicating
`screen a main menu listing at
`characters to be disposed in one
`least a first application,
`or more divisions of a game
`[1d] each function in the list
`display screen including a
`being selectable to launch the
`display region formed by
`first application and initiate the
`the divisions;
`selected function,
`
`-047: Paper 29, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 18
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1b] and additionally being
`configured to display on the
`screen an application summary
`window that can be reached
`directly from the main menu,
`
`‘659 Patent
`[1c] a screen display control
`function of controlling the game
`display screen on a screen
`display unit on the basis of
`information regarding the layout
`by the panel layout function and
`layout of the panel in the
`divisions by the second user,
`wherein
`
`-047: Paper 29, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 19
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1c] wherein the application
`summary window displays a
`limited list of at least one
`function offered within the first
`application,
`
`‘659 Patent
`[1d] the panel layout function
`disposes the panel received by
`the panel selection function in a
`target division or receives an
`instruction that the panel is
`disposed in the target division,
`when the panel is allowed to be
`disposed in the target division,
`and
`
`-047: Paper 29, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 20
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘659 Patent
`[1e] the panel indicating the
`character is displayed as an
`animation when being disposed
`in the target division.
`
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1e] and wherein the application
`summary window is displayed
`while the application is in an un-
`launched state.
`
`-047: Paper 29, at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 21
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Whether Cards “Correspond” to Panels as Claimed is
`Irrelevant
`
`“It is not enough, however, to merely trace the invention to
`some real-world analogy. The eligibility question is not
`whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information.
`That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of
`abstraction is whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the abstract
`idea itself.”
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`-029: Paper 26, at 36-37.
`-047: Paper 20, at 43-44.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 22
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Improvements on General Purpose Hardware are Not Abstract
`
`• “Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability
`to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.”
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`• “Much of the advancement made in computer technology
`consists of improvements to software that, by their very
`nature, may not be defined by particular physical features
`but rather by logical structures and processes.” Id. at 1339.
`
`-029: Paper 26, at 25, 38.
`-047: Paper 20, at 25, 45.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 23
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Satisfy Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 24
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Step Two Is Satisfied When the Claims are More than Well-
`Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
`
`• “When the limitations…are taken together as an ordered
`combination, the claims recite an invention that is not
`merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.”
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`• “In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive
`concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem,
`rendering the claims patent-eligible.” Id.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 10-12.
`-047: Paper 29, at 10-12.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 25
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Require A New Type of Information
`
`-029: Ex. 2002 ¶ 23.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 17-18
`-047: Paper 29, at 17-19.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 26
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Panels Are A “New Or Original Deck of Cards”
`
`“We could envisage, for example, claims directed to
`conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards
`potentially surviving step two of Alice.” In re Smith, 815 F.3d
`at 819.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 19-20.
`-047: Paper 29, at 19-20.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 27
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Any Evidence from a Skilled Artisan
`
`“The question of whether a claim element or combination of
`elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
`skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 20-21.
`-047: Paper 29, at 21-22.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 28
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Original Claims Provide Sufficient Written Description
`
`“the data storage function further stores points set for the
`first user, which are decreased by disposing a panel, the
`panel selection function selects a panel from the first panel
`database according to the points set for the first user,
`
`… t
`
`he panel layout function disposes the panel selected by the
`panel selection function in a target division when the panel is
`allowed to be disposed in the target division.”
`
`-029: Paper 26, at 64-65; Ex. 1002, at 220-221.
`-047: Paper 29, at 23; Ex. 1002, at 279.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 29
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Mr. Crane Understood the Claims
`
`-047: Ex. 2002 ¶ 50; see also -029: Ex. 2002 ¶ 44.
`“What is implied there but goes unsaid is obviously if the – an
`attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where
`the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed,
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`very well.”
`-029: Ex. 1009, at 107:24 – 108:4.
`-047: Ex. 1011, at 107:24 – 108:4.
`
`-029: Paper 35, at 21-23.
`-047: Paper 29, at 22-25.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 30
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
