GREE, INC.,
`
`,
`
`v.
`
`,
`
`00071
`00161
`00200
`00237
`
`No. 2:19
`
`00071
`
`RSP (the “’071 Case”), No. 2:19
`
`00161
`
`RSP (the “’161 Case”),
`
`No. 2:19
`
`00200
`
`RSP (the “’200 Case”), and Case No. 2:19
`
`00237
`
`“’237 Case”).
`
`(“Plaintiff”) (’071 Case Dkt. No. 110, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 75, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75, ’237 Case
`
`on Feb. 25, 2020 1
`
`(“Defendant”) (’071 Case
`
`Dkt. No. 120, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 83, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82, ’237 Case Dkt. No. 60, all filed on
`
`,
`
`’s replies ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 85, ’200 Case
`
`Dkt. No. 84, ’237 Case Dkt
`
`on
`
`issues this Order.
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 1
`
`

`

`............................................................................................................... 4
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978 Patents........... 4
`The ’318 and ’262 Patents ...................................................................................... 5
`The ’346 Patent....................................................................................................... 6
`The ’689 Patent....................................................................................................... 7
`..................................................................................................... 8
`................................................................................................. 8
`...................................... 11
`............................................................... 12
`200 ................................................ 12
`“template” ................................................................................................. 12
`“moving” and “moves”............................................................................. 17
`........................................................................................ 21
`“defining second positions” ...................................................................... 24
`................................................................................. 25
`“game space” ............................................................................................ 29
`“increase a first number of the game contents” and “increase a
`second number of the game contents” ...................................................... 32
`“create,” “creating,” and “being created” ................................................. 34
`8.
`“active allocation”..................................................................................... 37
`9.
`10. “compare a number of the plurality of game contents included in
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`game space” and “comparing a number of the plurality of game
`
`contents allocated in the game space” ...................................................... 39
`161 ........................................................................................... 41
`“advisory information” ............................................................................. 41
`“facility” and “object”............................................................................... 44
`“virtual space”........................................................................................... 48
`“at least two numerical parameters related to the first virtual space”
`and “at least two numerical parameters of the plurality of
`numerical parameters related to a first virtual space”............................... 50
`“ranking information ranking the plurality of users according to a
`numerical value indicating a status of each user”..................................... 52
`237 ........................................................................................... 54
`“panel(s)” .................................................................................................. 54
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`1.
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 2
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`“divisions”................................................................................................. 56
`“displaying the one or more moving characters according to the
`information of motion” ............................................................................. 60
`“varying an attack …” and “vary an attack …”........................................ 62
`“third unit” ................................................................................................ 66
`............................................................................................................... 67
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 3
`
`

`

`14 U.S. Patents
`
`the ’071 Case, Plaintiff asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”). In the ’161 Case,
`
`Plaintiff asserts two U.S. Patents: No. 10,286,318 (the “’318 Patent”) and No. 10,279,262
`
`“’262 Patent”). In the ’200 Case, Plaintiff asserts 9 U.S. Patents: No. 10,300,385 (the “’385
`
`Patent”), No. 10,307,675 (the “’675 Patent”), No. 10,307,676 (the “’676 Patent”), No. 10,307,677
`
`(the “’677 Patent”), No. 10,307,678 (the “’678 Patent”), No. 10,328,347 (the “’347 Patent”), No.
`
`10,335,682 (the “’682 Patent”), No. 10,335,683 (the “’683 Patent”), and No. 10,398,978 (the “’978
`
`Patent”). In the ’237 Case, Plaintiff assert
`
`two U.S. Patents: No. 10,328,346 (the “’346 Patent”)
`
`and No. 10,335,689 (the “’689 Patent”). The ’594, ’262, ’318, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’346,
`
`’347, ’682, ’683, ’689,
`
`’978 Patents are collectively referred to herein as the “Asserted
`
`Patents.”
`
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978
`
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978
`
`“’594 Patent Family”)
`
`’594 Patent. The
`
`The abstract of the ’594 Patent provides:
`
`4
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent, an exemplary
`
`1
`
`’318 and ’262 Patents
`
`The ’262 and the ’318 Patent
`
`. The ’262 Patent purports to
`
`be a continuation of the application that issued as the ’318 Patent. The
`
`The abstract of the ’318 Patent provides:
`
`The abstract of the ’262 Patent provides:
`
`Claim 1 of the ’262 Patent,
`
`5
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 5
`
`

`

`The ’346 Patent
`
`The ’346 Patent lists an earliest p
`
`The abstract of the ’346 Patent provides:
`
`Claim 1 of the ’346 Patent,
`
`6
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 6
`
`

`

`non
`
`The ’689 Patent
`
`The ’689 Patent lists an earliest priority claim to a
`
`2013.
`
`The abstract of the ’689 Patent provides:
`
`on
`
`Claim 9 of the ’689
`
`7
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 7
`
`

`

`unit, in response to the first unit and a second unit a
`
`“
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`‘
`
`’”
`
`861.
`
`—
`
`’
`
`.
`
`—
`
`,
`
`.3d
`
`–
`
`’
`
`’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed m
`
`community at the relevant time.”
`
`135 S. Ct. 1846 (2015).
`
`8
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 8
`
`

`

`“The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
`
`claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per A
`
`, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[I]n
`
`all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’”
`
`Cir. 2015). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive.
`
`he claim’s meaning, because
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning.
`
`–15.
`
`“
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`“‘
`
`9
`
`—
`
`’”
`
`’”
`
`’”
`
`“
`
`,
`
`’
`
`“
`
`—
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 9
`
`

`

`limited.”
`
`,
`
`and Trademark Office (“
`
`”)
`
`However, “
`
`.
`
`may be “
`
`, 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`”).
`
`“‘
`
`’
`
`’
`
`.
`
`10
`
`”
`
`’”
`
`“
`
`”
`
`.
`
`’
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 10
`
`

`

`“
`
`meaning”
`
`“
`
`”
`
`,
`
`–32
`
`.
`
`,
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning: “
`
`specification or during prosecution.”2
`
`(“[T]
`
`put. Entm’
`
`.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`.
`
`, 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`
`”). The standards for finding lexicography or
`
`disavowal are “exacting.”
`
`.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “
`
`erm,” and “
`
`define the term.”
`
`, 669
`
`1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“
`
`, deliberateness, and precision.”
`
`.
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “ lear and unmistakable” surrender.
`
`cope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`2
`
`“
`
`”
`
`.g.,
`
`7
`
`.
`
`11
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Corp. v. Bos.
`
`, 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`1366
`
`(“
`
`”). “Where an applicant’
`
`”
`
`, 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`071
`
`200
`
`1.
`
`“template”
`
`3
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`
`“template”
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`’594 Patent Claim 1
`’675 Patent Claims 1–4, 8–15, 19–24, 26–28, 30
`’676 Patent Claims 1, 5–7, 11–24
`’677 Patent Claims 1–3, 7–20
`’678 Patent Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–10, 12–13
`’347 Patent Claims 1–8, 10–17, 19–26, 28–30
`’682 Patent Claims 10–12, 14–15
`’978 Patent Claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 17–18
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`meaning of “template” in the claims is readily apparent without
`
`and construing it as “record” would not clarify claim scope.
`
`construed “template” as “record” in a Post Grant Review
`
`the ’594 Patent,
`
`3
`
`(’071 Case Dkt. No. 123; ’161 Case Dkt. No. 88; ’200 Case Dkt. No.
`86; ’237 Case Dkt. No. 64).
`
`12
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 12
`
`

`

`PTAB’s decision is currently on appeal. ’071 Case
`
`110
`
`14–17; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75
`
`14–17.4
`
`As explained in the ’594 Patent, a “‘template’ is a ‘record’ of the
`
`positions of one or more game pieces in a game that can be applied in other games spaces.” During
`
`Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent, Plaintiff explained that the “template” is a “data structure.”
`
`there is no difference between a “record” and a “data structure”
`
`construed “template” as “record.” ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120 at 10–12; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 10–
`
`13.
`
`’594 Patent fig.4, col.7 ll.16–
`
`Owner’s Response at 33, 35,
`
`,
`
`00008 ’594
`
`July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s Ex. F, ’071 Case
`
`(Defendant’s Ex.
`
`C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`5
`
`,
`
`00008 ’594 Patent
`
`(Defendant’s Ex.
`
`, ’071 Case
`
`8
`
`44 (Defendant’s Ex. D, ’200 Case
`
`–18,
`
`1
`
`5
`
`–8,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. B, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`– .
`
`2 (Defendant’s Ex. E, ’071 Case
`
`–
`
`Webster’s
`
`4 5
`
`or Post Grant
`–61
`.
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can
`
`1317 (“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides
`disclaimer”);
`evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”).
`13
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 13
`
`

`

`at 1286 (11th ed. 2007), “template” (Defendant’s Ex. B, ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`120
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. E, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`(7th ed. 2000), “template matching” (Defendant’s
`
`C, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. F, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`.
`
`It would be improper to replace “template” with the “overly broad” term
`
`“record.” Indeed, the term “record” is not used in the ’594 Patent. As exp
`
`Grant Review of the ’594 Patent, the “template” of the claims is a specific type of “data structure.”
`
`But this does not equate “template” with “data structure.” Rather, counsel there explained that a
`
`“template” is “something . . .
`
`context.” Ultimately, the details of the “template” are set forth in the claims. ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`8–12; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 at 8–11.
`
`Intrinsic
`
`’594 Patent col.3 ll.49–
`
`–17; Patent Owner’s Response at 33, 35,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s
`
`Ex. F, ’071 Case
`
`, 39 (Defendant’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018), paper 41 (Defendant’s Ex. G, ’071
`
`–
`
`–21,
`
`Case Dkt. No. 120
`
`8, 44 (Defendant’s Ex. D, Dkt. No. 82
`
`8,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. E, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120
`
`9 .
`
`paper 1 (Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122 1 at 9) (Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’200 Case Dkt. No.
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7. 2017),
`
`14
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 14
`
`

`

`84
`
`6 Claypool ’675 Pate
`
`7
`
`20 00038
`
`’675
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`pool ’678 Patent
`
`8 44,
`
`,
`
`8 00042 (’678
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), Exhibit 1005 (Plaintiff’s
`
`Ex. D, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. D, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`The issue in dispute is whether a “template” is necessarily a “record.” A “template” is
`
`.
`
`are records, the evidence of record does not support equating “template” with “record.”
`
`of the ’594 Patent recites “a template defining second positions of one or more of the game contents
`
`text for understanding “template.” For example, Claim 1
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`provides similar context: “creating . . .
`
`.” Claim 1 of the ’675 Patent
`
`. . .
`
`6
`s petitioner’s submissions in an Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review as
`extrinsic evidence because these submissions do not necessarily reflect the patent owner’s or the
`1359–
`PTO’s understanding of the patent.
`“
`
`” (emphasis added));
`
`7
`
`8
`
`2020
`
`1317 (“
`
`.” (emphasis added)).
`
`00038,
`2020 00041. ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122 at 1 n.1; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`15
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 15
`
`

`

`.” The other claims at issue provide similar context
`
`The “pattern” aspect of the template was recognized during the Post Grant Review of the ’594
`
`Patent. For instance, Plaintiff described that in the context of the claims, a template is “a data
`
`28,
`
`.” Patent Owner’s Response
`
`’071 Case
`
`–
`
`–21,
`
`“
`
`. . .
`
`00008
`
`,
`
`”), ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120
`
`e PTAB expressly construed “template” as
`
`“record,” it also explained that “ ‘
`
`’
`
`‘
`
`n,’
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`‘
`
`’”
`
`8,
`
`00008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019), paper 42, ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`120
`
`The extrinsic evidence of record also indicates the “pattern” aspect of “template.” For
`
`vides the following definition: “som
`
`a pattern.”
`
`Webster’s
`
`at 1286 (11th ed. 2007), ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`120
`
`term “record” alone may not convey this “pattern” nature of the template.
`
`the Court construes “template” as follows:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“
`
`” means “
`
`.”
`
`16
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 16
`
`

`

`2.
`
`“moving” and “moves”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`
`“moving”
`
`’594 Patent Claim 1
`(cid:120)
`’676 Patent Claims 18, 24
`(cid:120)
`’677 Patent Claims 12
`(cid:120)
`“moves”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’594 Patent Claim 2
`
`Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`The Parties’ Posit
`
`The term “moving” is used in the claims to denote moving game contents
`
`. Defendant’s proposed construction
`
`improperly adds the limitation of “in real time during game play.” Such a l
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 110 at 17–19; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75 at 18–19.9
`
`’594 Patent,
`
`templates are applied “at precisely the needed time.”
`
`prosecution of the ’677 Patent that the claimed invention was distinct over the prior art because
`
`the prior art did not “disclose the use of the templates by users during game play.” ’071 Case Dkt.
`
`14–15; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 13.
`
`9 Plaintiff cites the file wrapper for the ’677 Patent but did not provide the document as an exhibit
`
`17
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response at 33, 34, 44, 45,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s Ex. F, ’071 Case
`
`–38, 48–
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. C, ’200 Case
`
`–38, 48–
`
`’677 Patent File Wrapper March 19, 2018 Amendment at 10–11 (Defendant’s Ex. D, ’071 Case
`
`10–
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. H, ’200 Case
`
`–
`
`Crane ’594
`
`10 13–14,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. H, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120
`
`–
`
`(Defendant’s
`
`Ex. G, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`–
`
`The statement its expert made in Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent was
`
`lity to apply templates at the right time, it was not about “moving” and did not use
`
`the term “real time.” The statement it made during prosecution of the ’677 Patent likewise
`
`not suggest “real time” movement during game play. Rather, the statement co
`
`Defendant has represented to the PTAB that the meaning of “moving”
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 122 a 12–14; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 at 12–13.
`
`Intrinsic
`
`Crane ’594 Patent
`
`,
`
`,
`
`(Defendant’s Ex.
`
`, ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`120 9
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. G, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`– ; ’677 Patent File Wrapper
`
`10–11 (Defendant’s Ex. D, ’0
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. H, Dkt. No. 82
`
`–
`
`.
`
`10–
`
`,
`
`10
`
`18
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 18
`
`

`

`,
`
`00008 (’594
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’071 Case
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`Claypool ’675 Patent
`
`11
`
`,
`
`’675
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`tiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00039 (’676
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ’071 Case
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00041 (’677
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. H, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. H, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`The issue in dispute is whether the “moving” of the claims
`
`provide significant context for understanding when the “moving” occurs. For
`
`example, Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent recites that “when the template is applied . . .
`
`. . .
`
`. . . .” Similarly, Claim 18 of the ’676 Patent provides “apply the template by moving
`
`of the plurality of game contents defined by the template.”
`
`f the “moving” of
`
`do not mandate that moving must be “in real time during game play.” First, it is not
`
`11
`
`2020
`
`00038,
`2020 00041. ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122 at 1 n.1; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`19
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 19
`
`

`

`clear what “in real time” means in Defendant’s proposal. This term
`
`’594 Patent or its progeny and it is not used in the
`
`“during game play”
`
`.
`
`on of the ’677 Patent
`
`,
`
`d
`
`. . .
`
`’677 Patent File Wrapper,
`
`–11
`
`, ’0
`
`10–11. Thus,
`
`Thus, “during game play” means during
`
`on
`
`the Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction and determines that
`
`“moving” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
`
`20
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`
`3.
`
`”
`
`’594 Patent Claim 1
`
`”
`
`’347 Patent Claims 8, 17, 26
`”
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`’347 Patent Claims 18, 27
`(cid:120)
`“predetermined area within the game
`space”
`
`’978 Patent Claim 1
`(cid:120)
`“area of the game space”
`
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`’978
`
`”
`
`’385 Patent Claims 1, 9, 17–18
`’682 Patent Claims 1, 9
`’683 Patent Claims 1, 5, 9
`”
`
`’385 Patent Claims 1, 9, 17–18
`’682 Patent Claims 1, 9
`’683 Patent Claims 1, 5, 9
`
`Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`. Read in context, the “area” terms may be within the game
`
`21
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 21
`
`

`

`to areas that are “part of the game space,” though claims th recite “at least part of the game space”
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 110 at 19–21; ’200 Case Dkt. No.
`
`19–22.
`
`’594 Patent col.2 ll.5–
`
`–
`
`–60.
`
`preceded by “a” or “an”
`
`there may be more than one “area” within the game space and thus the “area” must be smaller
`
`. And the ’594 Patent and its progeny consistently describe the area as smaller
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 120 at 12–14; ’200 Case D
`
`14–17.
`
`’594 Patent figs.3A–
`
`–
`
`–10,
`
`–60.
`
`.
`
`wi
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 122 at 14–16; ’200 Case Dkt.
`
`14–16.
`
`1 (Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. A, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594
`
`,
`
`00034 (’385
`
`’s Ex. E, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 122
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. E,
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`; Claypool ’675 Patent
`
`,
`
`22
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 22
`
`

`

`00038 (’675
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’071 Case
`
`3 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`To begin, the use of “a” or “an” to introduce an “area” limitation within the game space does
`
`not mandate that the “area” is necessarily smaller than the game space. The Federal Circuit has
`
`instructed that, “[a]
`
`‘
`
`’”
`
`‘ ’
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`, 687 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`S
`
`c’
`
`., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`means that a claim directed to “an” area is not necessarily limited to a single a
`
`n
`
`’385 Patent recites: “
`
`.” The plain reading of this limitation allows that the contents may be arranged within the
`
`entirety of the game space (which is “at least part of a game space”). Defendant essentially
`
`proposes rewriting “at least part of a game space” as “only a part of a game space.” This would
`
`Even if all the embodiments in the ’594 Patent Family include an area that is smaller than the
`
`, 669
`
`1366 (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or
`
`23
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 23
`
`

`

`specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”); SRI Int’l v.
`
`n banc) (“The law does not require
`
`conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”).
`
`.
`
`the Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction that every “area” term is
`
`necessarily a “portion of the game space that is smaller than the game space”
`
`4.
`
`“defining second positions”
`
`.
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`
`“defining second positions”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’594 Patent Claim 1
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`. Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent requires a template that defines “second
`
`positions” not “one or more positions.” Defendant’s proposal
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 110 at 21.
`
`of the game contents” and thus allows for a singular second position of only one game content.
`
`uires a template that defines “second positions of one or more
`
`’071 Case Dkt. No. 120 at 15–16.
`
`24
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 24
`
`

`

`The claim requires “one or more game contents
`
`.” ’071
`
`16.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent
`
`.
`
`individual game contents. Specifically, Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent recites “a
`
`“defining second positions” refers to second positions for
`
`.” Thus, each game content is associated with a first position and “one or more of
`
`the game contents” are associated with a second position. In other words, not
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“defining second positions of one or more of the game contents” means “defining a
`
`.”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Defendant’s Proposed
`
`5.
`
`“applying the first template”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’675 Patent Claims 1, 3–4, 11, 14–15,
`22
`“apply the first template”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’67
`
`25
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 25
`
`

`

`Plaintiff’s Proposed Defendant’s Proposed
`
`“applying the second template”
`
`’675 Patent Claim 8
`(cid:120)
`“apply the second template”
`
`’675 Patent Claim 19
`(cid:120)
`“applying”
`
`’675 Patent Claim 10
`(cid:120)
`“apply”
`
`’675 Patent Claim 21
`(cid:120)
`“apply the template”
`
`’676 Patent Claims 13, 18–19, 24
`(cid:120)
`’677 Patent Claims 13, 17
`(cid:120)
`’347 Patent Claims 10, 19
`(cid:120)
`“applying the template”
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`’677 Patent
`’347 Patent Claims 1, 6, 8, 15, 17, 24,
`26, 30
`“applying a template”
`
`’978 Patent Claim 1
`(cid:120)
`“apply a template”
`
`’676 Patent Claim 1, 7
`(cid:120)
`’978 Patent Claims 7, 13
`(cid:120)
`“applying the selected one of the plurality
`of templates”
`
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`
`’675 Patent Claims 23, 27
`
`”
`
`’677 Patent Claims 15, 19
`
`26
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 26
`
`

`

`ies’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`The meaning of “applying” is
`
`.
`
`the “moving” term, there is no need or justification to import an “in real time during game play”
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 75 at 22–23.
`
`As explained by Plaintiff during Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent,
`
`applied “at precisely the needed time.” This means that it is applied in real time
`
`during game play. Similarly, Plaintiff explained during prosecution of the ’677 Patent that the
`
`ot “disclose the use of
`
`the templates by users during game play.” Thus, the claims are directed to applying the template
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 17–18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 33, 34, 44, 45,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594
`
`) (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s Ex. C, ’200 Case
`
`–38, 48–49); Crane ’594 Patent
`
`13–14,
`
`,
`
`00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018), Exhibit 2004 (Defendant’s Ex. G, ’200
`
`Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`– .
`
`This issue in dispute is the same as for the “moving” terms and the arguments
`
`st Defendant’s proposed constructions there apply equally to the Applying Terms. ’200 Case
`
`16–17.
`
`Claypool ’675 Patent
`
`,
`
`000
`
`’675 Patent
`
`27
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 27
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00039 (’675 Patent
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. F, ’200 Case Dkt.
`
`,
`
`00039 (’676 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ’200 Case
`
`,
`
`00041 (’677
`
`.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. H, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`movement of game contents “in real time during game play.”
`
`on “moving” above, the Court rejects the “in real time” limitation. Further, with the understanding
`
`that “during game play” means during operation of the game as claimed, rather than during design
`
`“moving,” Plaintiff explained during prosecution
`
`of the ’677 Patent that
`
`templates of the ’594
`
`templates of the ’594 Patent Family are used
`
`“during gameplay” instead of during design of the
`
`game. ’677 Patent File Wrapper,
`
`–11, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120 5
`
`10–11
`
`ample, in Figure 6A of the ’594 Patent,
`
`28
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 28
`
`

`

`reproduced here. The “apply template” process is shown and described as occurring after the game
`
`“start” command.
`
`, ’594 Patent col.14 ll.15–63.
`
`truing “apply” and “applying”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“apply” means “apply . . . during game play”; and
`
`“applying” means “applying . . . during game play.”
`
`6.
`
`“
`
`”
`
`”
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`
`1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 17–21,
`
`’385 Patent Claims 1–3, 9–11, 17–18
`’675
`1, 3–4, 7–8, 11–12, 14–15,
`18–19, 22–23, 27
`’676
`23–24
`’677
`’347
`’682
`’683
`’978
`
`1–3, 7–9, 11–15, 17–19
`1, 6–10, 15–19, 24–30
`1–11, 14
`1–12
`1–3, 7–9, 13–15
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Defendant represented as much to the PTAB during Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent by not
`
`construction of “game space.” This readily apparent meaning does not require “a
`
`screen of a particular portable device.” Most of the claims do not recite a “portable device” and
`
`.
`
`29
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 29
`
`

`

`’200 Case Dkt. No. 75 at 23–24.12
`
`The intrinsic record shows a distinction between “game space,” which is
`
`a display screen of a portable device, and “area,” which is a portion of
`
`. ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 18–19.
`
`’594 Patent fig.3E, col
`
`–
`
`.
`
`Defendant repeatedly represented to the PTAB that the meaning of “game
`
`space” in the claims is apparent without construction. ’200 Case Dkt
`
`17.
`
`osition: Claypool ’675 Patent
`
`,
`
`00038 (’675 Patent
`
`Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 3); Claypool ’385 Patent
`
`13
`
`,
`
`00034 (’385 Patent
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. B, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00034 (’385 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020), paper 1 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, ’2
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. F, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00039 (’676 Patent
`
`. 4,
`
`2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`,
`
`00039 (’675
`
`12 Plaintiff cites the ’675 Patent’s file wrapper
`
`13
`
`30
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 30
`
`

`

`There appear to be two main issues in dispute. First, whether the “game space” is
`
`.
`
`whether the “game space” is necessarily limited to a display sc
`
`Rather, the “game space” is the virtual space within which the game is played.
`
`sufficient to limit the “game space”
`
`“
`
`” limitation.
`
`recite “portable electronic device.”
`
`, ’978 Patent
`
`.
`
`, ’385 Patent Claim 1 (reciting a “user terminal”).
`
`’594 Patent Family patents expres
`
`, ’594 Patent col.2 ll.12–
`
`“
`
`space” is not necessarily displayed.
`
`that are not the “game space,” such as a “template selection” screen, a “template display” screen,
`
`and “area selection” screen, even while the “game space” continues to exist.
`
`, ’594 Patent
`
`” Finally, the “game
`
`–
`
`–
`
`Ultimately, the Court is not convinced that the defining nature of “game space” is related to
`
`of the “game space” is that it is a
`
`called “city building games”)
`
`“
`
`”)
`
`31
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 31
`
`

`

`’594 Patent col.1 ll.27–34
`
`construes “game space” as follows:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“game space” means “virtual space within which the game is played.”
`
`7.
`
`“
`
`”
`
`” and “
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Defendant’s Proposed
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`
`”
`
`’385
`’682
`’683
`
`”
`
`’683
`
`2, 10
`2
`2, 6, 10
`
`3, 7, 11
`
`Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`The Parties’
`
`Notably, the claimed “increasing” is not limited to increasing contents over that “already
`
`displayed.” ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75 at 24–25.
`
`he claims express that contents “arranged” in a game space are
`
`.
`
`200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 19–20.
`
`. ’
`
`in the ’385 Patent claims is apparent without construction. ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 at 17–18.
`
`he meaning of the “increase” term
`
`32
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 32
`
`

`

`position: Claypool ’385 Patent
`
`14
`
`,
`
`00034 (’385
`
`Exhibit 1005 (Plaintiff’s Ex. B, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00034 (’385 Patent
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. E, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`The issue in dispute appears to be whether game contents “arranged” within a game space are
`
`“
`
`.” They are not.
`
`“arranged” to mean displayed.
`
`understanding these terms. For example, Claim 2 of the ’683 Patent recites: “arranging a first set
`
`within the first game space.” Claim 3 of the patent similarly recites: “
`
`.” In other words, game contents are arranged in a game
`
`Thus, the contents “arranged” in the game space are not necessarily
`
`, either before or after the number of contents is increased. Ultimately, the “increase”
`
`the Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction and determines tha
`
`.
`
`14
`
`33
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 33
`
`

`

`8.
`
`“
`
`,” “creating,” and “being created”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Defendant’s Proposed
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`“
`
`”
`
`’675 Patent Claims 12, 19, 23
`’676 Patent Claims 1, 7
`’677 Patent Claims 13–14, 17–18
`’347 Patent Claims 16, 25
`’978 Patent Claims 1, 7, 13
`ing”
`
`’675 Patent Claims 1, 8, 27
`(cid:120)
`’677 Patent
`(cid:120)
`’347 Patent Claims 7, 29
`(cid:120)
`’978 Patent Claims 1
`(cid:120)
`“being created”
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`’677 Patent Claims 1
`’678 Patent Claims 1, 5, 9, 12
`’682 Patent Claims 10, 14
`’347 Patent Claims 28
`
`parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Defendant’s prop
`
`inject ambiguity in regard to the meaning of “existence.”
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction threatens to improperly exclude from the scope of the
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 75
`
`25–26.
`
`’594 Patent col.2 ll.59–
`
`–26.
`
`34
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 34
`
`

`

`’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 20–21.
`
`.
`
`’594 Patent col.20 ll.24–30.
`
`at 427 (4th ed. 2000), “create” (Defendant’s Ex. I,
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
`
`“create” (Defendant’s Ex. J, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82
`
`154
`
`ed. 1994), “create” (Defendant’s Ex. K, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 12
`
`4
`
`Webster’s
`
`272
`
`1993), “create” (Defendant’s Ex. L, ’200 Case
`
`82 13
`
`4 .
`
`. ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 at 18.
`
`,
`
`00038 (’675
`
`Claypool ’675 Patent
`
`Exhibit 1012 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 3); Claypool ’678 Patent
`
`15 44,
`
`,
`
`00042 (’678
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. D, ’200 Case
`
`,
`
`00039 (’675
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. F,
`
`’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`,
`
`00039 (
`
`’676
`
`) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ’200 Case Dkt. No.
`
`15
`
`35
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 35
`
`

`

`84
`
`,
`
`00041 (’677
`
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020), paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. H, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`paper 2 (Plaintiff’s Ex. I, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84
`
`.
`
`,
`
`00042 (’678
`
`by
`
`templates made by modifying existing templates from the scope of “create.” Such a limitation is
`
`justified by Defendant’s evidence. Indeed, the ’594 Patent Family patents state the opposite.
`
`.
`
`’594 Patent col.19 ll.49–
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction and determines that these
`
`36
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1019
`Page 36
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Proposed
`
`” P
`
`laintiff’s Proposed
`
`9.
`
`“
`
`”
`
`’676 Patent Claims 5, 11
`’978 Patent Claims 5, 11, 17
`
`Parties’ Positions
`
`“
`
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120)
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction does not clarify anything but instead improperly adds
`
`. ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75 at 26–27.
`
`The claims do not clearly specify “where the active allocation is
`
`provided” and the term should be construed as described in patents; namely,
`
`. ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 21–22.
`
`: The term “active allocation” does not limit “
`
`” Defendant represented to the PTAB that the meaning of the “active allocation” term in
`
`the ’676 Patent’s claims is apparent without