Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Game and Technology Co. v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

Evidence Supports IPR Cancellation of Video Game “Avatar” Claims

Game and Technology Co. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 2553517 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2019) (Prost, Lourie, WALLACH) (PTAB) (1 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir affirms IPR decision finding claims obvious. GAT’s patent related to customization of Internet game characters by visually layering game items with a game avatar. The Board did not err in rejecting GAT’s proposal to limit the claim term “gamvatar” to require concurrent usability both in a game and on a website. It describes how both the claims and specification supported a broader construction. The Board also did not err in rejecting GAT’s narrowing interpretation of “layers,” and describes how the specification and file history supported the Board. Substantial evidence also supported the Board’s obviousness determination, and the opinion summarizes how the prior art (a game manual) disclosed displaying an avatar online through an associated service, as well as a “gamvatar” drawn in part from that avatar in the game. The opinion rejects GT’s contention that the service was indistinct from the game. It also rejects GAT’s contention that the manual failed to disclose multiple “layers,” reciting how the manual taught how to place weapons and potions into an interface to have them ready for game functions. The Board also did not err in relying on a single-reference obviousness combination for some claims, per Arendi, 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

KEYWORDS: INTER PARTES REVIEW; OBVIOUSNESS (YES); CLAIM CONSTRUCTION