• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
127 results

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Game and Technology Co., Ltd.

Docket IPR2016-01885, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 23, 2016)
Barbara Benoit, Daniel Galligan, Jennifer Bisk, Jessica Kaiser, Michael Zecher, Scott Howard, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8253743
Patent Owner Game and Technology Co., Ltd.
Petitioner Activision Blizzard, Inc.
Assignee NHN CORP
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

35 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 35 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2018)
Rather, having considered the record developed during trial, we maintain that the initial determination of the Board in the Decision on Institution is correct that exhaustion in the claims refers to game item functions rather than disappearance of layers.
Petitioner asserts the Diablo II Manual’s disclosure of online gaming via various servers teaches that “the non- transitory storage medium is configured to store information relating to the gamvatar,” as recited in claim 9.
The only document introduced by Patent Owner that purports to be prepared by the inventor merely reflects some high-level ideas and asks “how the above descriptions need to be organized and supplemented so I can put together and send to you.” Ex. 2008, 2.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nature of the inventory items and the ability to change clothing on the avatar described in the Rogers provisional application discloses “multiple layers” and layering.
Having considered the full record developed during trial, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 of the ’743 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of the Diablo II Manual and Rogers.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

34 Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 34 Hearing Transcript - Hearing Transcript (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
As also noted by the Board in the institution decision, the claims don't expressly require displaying layers for performing game item functions.
Referring to slide 13, there's a further text description of the inventory panel of how it displays a paper doll image of the character as it appears in the game and slots in which the equipment can be worn.
So I'm unsure that that is, in fact, the position of the petitioners, that the addition of the in-game equipment to the avatar thereby satisfies the combining step to create a Case IPR2016-01885 Patent 8,253,743 B2 gamvatar within the game.
And your Honors may note that patent owner has provided Exhibit 2002, which is an excerpt from the classic Strunk and White manual which describes the proper English grammatical usage of an object predicated by "each of" followed by a singular verb, in this case "is exhausted."
So it talks about the melee combat, and it says you've got left click on the creature, and you hold the mouse button down, and then your Amazon approaches and begins to attack, so there is a use, and something is going to happen in response to that use.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

29 Order: Order Trial Hearing

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 29 Order - Order Trial Hearing (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017)
Before STACEY G. WHITE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
Patent 8,253,743 B2 Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case No. IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
The parties also should note that one member of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location and that, if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully available or visible to the judge presiding over the hearing remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

23 Order: Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 23 Order - Order Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR 425 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017)
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. and RIOT GAMES, INC., Petitioner,
Before STACEY G. WHITE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
Conduct of Proceeding
On March 21, 2017, trial was instituted and a Scheduling Order (Paper 14) was issued setting November 30, 2017, as the date on which oral argument will occur, if requested by the parties.
By this Order, the date for oral argument is now November 29, 2017, and the oral argument, if requested, will take place in the Texas Regional Office in Dallas, Texas, located at 207 South Houston St., Suite 159, Dallas, Texas 75202.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

13 Order: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 13 Order - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)
The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding.
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
Petitioner must file any reply to Patent Owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
Each party must file any motion for an observation on the cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4.
Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Institution Decision: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 15 Institution Decision - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)
The inclusion of these layering techniques would not have involved any undue experimentation by a POSITA, and would have yielded a predictable result, namely, a cohesive and visually pleasing video game image.
These expressions, movements, animations, clothing or accessories can be acquired by each participant in the simulated market economy and stored in the participant’s inventory and later used to change the appearance or behavior of the avatar.
The DAoC Manual also discloses an “Inventory Panel[, which] displays a paper doll image of your character as it currently appears in the game, slots in which equipment may be worn, a backpack and currency.” Ex. 1015, 27.
On the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention because the DAoC Manual discloses, for example, that a “character can carry weapons and shields in different hands, depending on its class, level and trained skills.” Ex. 1015, 33.
With respect to the “combining” limitation, Petitioner contends that, through the use of the “Inventory Panel,” the DAoC Manual teaches combining game item functions, such as armor and weapons, with a character (avatar).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Order: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2016-01885, No. 14 Order - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)
The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding.
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
Petitioner must file any reply to Patent Owner’s response and opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
Each party must file any motion for an observation on the cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4.
Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 >>