Further to the previous post on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos, here is a link to an article discussing potential impacts of the decision on the gambling industry. The article quotes Shawn Gorman and Charles Miller of Banner & Witcoff, LTD’s Chicago Office. Free registration at gamingcompliance.com is required to view the article.
In its long awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in the Bilski case. The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, but on different grounds, holding that Mr. Bilski’s invention, a method of hedging investment risk, is unpatentable because he is trying to patent an “abstract idea.”
- Trademark infringement and dilution & contributory trademark infringement and dilution by Linden and Vezina (included as a John Doe defendant). Minsky alleged that Vezina’s SLART Garden infringed on his SLART trademark. The complaint states that by denying the validity of Minsky’s trademark, allowing Vezina to maintain SLART Garden, and refusing to identify Vezina so that Minsky could include him in the lawsuit, Linden contributed to trademark infringement.
- Tortious Interference by Linden when it hid Vezina and refused to take down infringing materials, which Minsky claimed Linden did in order “to try to intimidate and coerce [Minsky] into giving up [his] lawful trademark and rename [his] publication and other activities in a manner that would give them control of the content.”
- Fraud by Mitch Kapor (former Chairman of Linden), Philip Rosedale (former CEO and current Chairman of Linden) and Linden Research. Minsky claims they enticed people (including Minsky) to join Second Life by promising protection of their IP rights in the virtual world but then failed to provide that protection.
It seems that Gibson’s efforts to enforce its musical concert participation patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,990,405) have officially ended. Previously we told you that Gibson’s Tennessee case against Harmonix (and its “Rock Band” game) was on its way back on track after being on hold for a while. While it was on hold, a California court ruled that the same patent did not cover Activision’s “Guitar Hero” game, and it seemed likely that the Tennessee court would end up doing the same for “Rock Band.”
On Friday, the Tennessee court dismissed the case in view of a settlement that the parties had reached. This dismissal would appear to end the battle over this patent.
Settlement terms are confidential, although we can speculate that the things that happened while the case was on hold did not make Gibson’s life easy. First, proceedings at the Patent Office suggested that the “musical instrument” required by the Gibson patent had to be capable of making music. This may have caused Gibson to drop its claims against the “Guitar Hero” and “Rock Band” guitars (I’ve never been able to make actual music with those things), and the holdout claims may have been leveled against the drums in the “Rock Band” game (on the theory that the drums could at least still make music).
Second, when the California court ruled that the Activision “Guitar Hero” game was not covered by the patent, the California court doubted whether the patent covered any interactive video game at all (the patent’s description focuses on letting a user simulate participation in a musical concert, which arguably is not an interactive game type of thing). Even if Gibson was now only focusing on the “Rock Band” drums as being “musical instruments” to get around the first issue, this finding by the California court would still have been thorny for Gibson to get around.
The vast majority of cases settle before the end of trial and appeals. Mounting evidence and court rulings developed during the case help resolve points of contention, and make the chances of success clearer for both parties to see, and eventually the parties are able to make the business decision to end it at terms they can live with. With the settlement in this case, here’s hoping Gibson, Activision, Harmonix and the others can move on and give us all the next generation in great musical games!
The Magnavox Co., et al. v. Chicago Dynamic Industries, et al.
201 U.S.P.Q. 25 (N.D. Ill. 1977)
For those of you who love home video games as much as we do, the following lawsuit will be of interest.
The case concerns the Magnavox Company (makers of the Odyssey) who released a ping-pong style game you may have heard of: Pong. The defendants in this case released similar ping-pong games and Magnavox sued for patent infringement.
At issue in the case were three similar patents that all dealt with a “Television Gaming Apparatus.” While there were several questions at issue in the case, the court focused on the issue of whether the patents were obvious or anticipated in light of one another, as either finding would lead to invalidity.
On April 17, 1973, United States Patent 3,728,408 (“the ‘408 patent”), was issued to Ralph Baer. In his oral judgment of the case, District Judge Grady commented: “The ‘408 patent, I think, is the pioneer patent in this art . . . with the players participating in the game in an environment such as a home or some place where a large computer would clearly not be available.” After issuance of the ‘408 patent, for the first time, video games would be brought to the home.
Two years later, on August 5, 1975, William Rusch received a similar television patent. This patent, United States Patent RE28,507 (“the ‘507 patent’), “discloses a movable hitting spot which is controlled by the player and which, by striking a hit spot, can change the direction of that hit spot.” The ‘507 patent used the term “distinct motion,” which Judge Grady interpreted as referring not to “a predictable motion,” but rather to motion that is different from the motion that characterized the hit spot immediately prior to the striking of the hit spot. This idea of changing the direction of the hit spot was not present in the development of games at this time. Before this patent, a player would simply turn a knob which set in motion a series of events that he had no further control over. After the ‘507 patent, however, players could now control the movement of the ball based upon the area of the hit spot the ball struck!
One question presented to the court was whether the feature of patent ‘507 was obvious at the time of its production. Others had imitated the ‘507 patent in similar ping-pong style games, but Judge Grady found that the novel feature of ‘507 was not obvious. In particular, the judge relied on the testimony by people from RCA who admitted that they had the mechanical capability to create this feature, but were going in a different direction of development at the time.
The next issue concerned what knowledge, if any, the patent examiner had when the ‘507 patent was examined for re-issue. The ‘408 patent, awarded before the ‘507 patent, should have been mentioned in the application, but it was not. The court sought to determine if the patent examiner had knowledge of the ‘408 patent and was actively trying to cover it up in his issuance of the ‘507 patent. Judge Grady determined that since the ‘507 patent was neither anticipated by nor obvious in light of the ‘408 patent, the patent examiner would have reached the same conclusion and awarded the ‘507 patent.
The next issue involved another television gaming apparatus patent, United States Patent RE28,598 (“the ‘598 patent”) which was issued on October 28, 1975. This patent made improvements to the visual reproduction in ‘507. Judge Grady found that ‘507 anticipated the ‘598 patent and also that ‘598 patent was obvious in the light of ‘507. The court determined that the ‘598 patent rectified some of the visual reproduction in ‘507 which, while an improvement, was not patentable. The ‘598 patent simply used the same type of circuitry in a more efficient way to achieve better results. As a result, 28,’598 patent was found invalid by Judge Grady as being anticipated by and obvious in view of the ‘507 patent.
Finally, Judge Grady turned to the question of whether the defendant’s Pong-like games infringed the ‘507 patent. The court found that the games did infringe the claims of the ‘507 patent “to the extent that they contain or use a player-controlled movable hitting symbol which, when it coincides with a hit symbol, causes a change in direction of that hit symbol.” Because all of the defendant’s games featured this characteristic, they were all held to infringe on ‘507.
The defendants made several arguments to provide that their games differed from the ‘507 patent. The judge, however, found these arguments to be immaterial and ruled against them on all counts. The first attempt by the defendant was focused on the influence of the direction of the ball by the place on the paddle where the ball strikes. In the ‘507 patent, when a ball in the game comes into contact with a hit symbol it changes the direction of that hit symbol in a distinct way. The defendants argued that the games do not meet this claim because the direction of the ball cannot be predicted after it strikes the paddle. Judge Grady disagreed, however, ruling that “distinct” meant “simply a motion that is different from the motion characterizing the ball immediately before the coincidence.”
This early lawsuit showed that courts were prepared to handle video game patent law, and also was a testament to the strength of patents in the video game industry. For more information on Mr. Baer’s early products, check out Ralph Baer’s web site, which has many more details about his inventions and his trials and tribulations getting them produced!
There’s an interesting article on Law360 today:
Virtual-World Conflicts Lead To Real-World Suits.
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Law360, New York (June 08, 2010) — As the market for online games expands and the debate over who has the right to control the virtual content heats up, website operators, their users and third parties could find themselves locked in real-world legal battles.Disputes stemming from ownership of virtual property and operators’ terms of service agreements are starting to pop up more often, leading intellectual property experts to speculate that they may become the next hot-button issues to be played out in the courts.
The complete article can be found here.
883 F.2d 275 (4th Cir. 1989).
Some of you may remember twin martial artists Billy Lee or Jimmy (who also went by Hammer and Spike). For those not familiar with the duo, they can be found in the 1987 beat ‘em up game “Double Dragon.” Hammer and Spike were the subject of this 1989 lawsuit. Taito is a Japanese corporation that sells video games and electronic printed circuit boards used in coin-operated video game units. Taito is the owner of United States Copyright Registration No. PA-327-710, issued June 26, 1987, for the video game audiovisual work Double Dragon.
Red Baron operated arcades where it allowed the public to play games. Red Baron, without license from Taito or Taito America, purchased circuits of Double Dragon from Japan and fitted them into their already existing game units, making the game playable to the customers. Taito took offense, arguing that they had intended the Double Dragon game to be sold in the United States as a complete video game unit, not just its circuit board. Taito claimed that each of the boards displayed the following restrictive note: “This game is for use in Japan only. Sales, exports, or operation outside this territory may violate international copyright and trademark law and the violator subject to severe penalties.”
The question in the case was whether Red Baron infringed Taito’s copyright in “Double Dragon,” when Red Baron imported the game from Japan and installed it in its video arcades for public enjoyment. The district court ruled that Red Baron did not infringe upon Taito’s copyright. This, of course, led to an appeal to the Fourth Circuit . . .
On appeal, Taito argued that it had a separate and distinct right to “perform” Double Dragon, and that it had not conferred this right on Red Baron. As a result, Red Baron infringed Taito’s copyright by its activities in making use of the circuit boards available to the public for a fee.
The court had to determine the following: 1. whether Red Baron’s use of Double Dragon constituted a public performance within the meaning of § 106 (4) and if so to consider 2. whether the first sale doctrine has any application to the performance right as distinguished from actual ownership of the copyrighted work.
A Public Performance
To “perform” a work and to perform it “publicly” are defined by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
“Perform” is defined as: “to recite, render, play, dance, or act [a work], either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.”
“Public” performance is defined as: “To perform . . . a work ‘publicly’ means- (1) to perform . . . it at a place open to the public . . . .”
The court concluded that Red Baron publicly performed Double Dragon because once a coin was inserted into the machine the television monitor displayed a series of images while the speakers made audible accompanying sounds. Also, because Red Baron’s video arcade was open to public and it was Red Baron’s aim to attract members of the public to its establishment, Red Baron’s arcade was considered a public place.
B. The First Sale Doctrine and the Performance Right
The second issue the court ruled on was Red Baron’s assertion that by selling the circuit boards, Taito intended to transfer the performance right. The court concluded that the first sale doctrine did not apply to the performance right and that Taito America possessed and retained a valid copyright in the public performance of Double Dragon in the United States. They also concluded that since Taito had not granted a performance license to Red Baron, the latter was guilty of copyright infringement.
In this early gray-market goods case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Well it looks like one of the two Harmonix/Konami cases might be settling. In Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. v Konami Digital Entertainment Co, Ltd., civil action 1:09-cv-10206 (D.Mass), the parties on June 1, 2010, jointly filed a status report with the court, indicating:
Plaintiffs Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. and Viacom Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. (“Defendants”) respectfully inform the Court that they have executed a binding and enforceable Settlement Term Sheet. The parties are currently working to execute a formal settlement agreement. The parties thus respectfully inform the Court that they expect to be able to provide another status report in 90 days.
Looks like they have come to some agreement in this case. Still no word whether the sister case, Konami v. Harmonix, is affected or not.