Ubisoft – Patent Arcade

Jun

2020

Ubisoft Alleges Rainbow Six Siege Infringement by Ejoy.com

Ubisoft Entm’t v. Ejoy.com Ltd.
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case No: 20-cv-4419
Filed: May 15, 2020

On May 15^th, 2020, Ubisoft filed a copyright lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd.’s Ejoy.com, the developer of Area F2 (“AF2”), which Ubisoft considers a copycat mobile version of Rainbow Six Siege (“R6S”).

Seemingly in response to the lawsuit, five days later on May 20^th, AF2 shut down its servers. AF2 announced the shutdown on its social media, but claims that the termination is for the purpose of redesigning the game (with no mention of the lawsuit) and implies that the game will be relaunched in the future.

Although AF2 shutting down may resolve Ubisoft’s prayer for injunctive relief to have the defendants cease selling, marketing, and distributing AF2, Ubisoft has not yet dropped the suit and is still seeking monetary relief including actual damages and/or the defendants’ profits, or statutory damages.

Specifically, Ubisoft claimed that AF2 copied the following from R6S:

Plot, Storyline, and Gameplay (including the preparation and action phases as well as objectives)
Characters and Operators (including specific combinations of skills, abilities, gadgets, attributes, and weapons assigned to each operator)
Locations, Environments, and Surfaces (including map design and layout of destructible, partially destructible, and reinforceable surfaces)
Weapons and Equipment (including fictional devices such as holographic decoys and invisibility equipment)
Sound, Visual Effects, and Animations (including the same reload animation, specific timing, and accompanying sound effects)
User Interface and Screen Displays (including very similar functionality, designs, and color schemes)
Scoring and Point System (including nearly identical scoring and point assignments for actions such as destroying an enemy drone)

Ubisoft also named Google and Apple as defendants, claiming that they received notice and had actual and constructive knowledge that AF2 infringes Ubisoft’s rights, but had not removed it from the Google Play store and Apple App Store. Google and Apple continued to financially benefit from AF2 revenue, so Ubisoft claims that Google and Apple cannot “avail themselves of any of the safe harbors of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”

We will continue to track this case and provide updates on interesting developments over the course of the litigation.

Aug

2019

Hard Rock Life for Video Game Music Teacher

Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. et al v. Yousician Oy
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Case No. 5-18-CV-383

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs Ubisoft, who are the developers and publishers of the video game Rocksmith, as well as owners of U.S. Patent No. 9,839,852 (the ‘852 patent), filed suit against software provider Yousician Oy for learning to play musical instruments in direct, induced, and contributory infringement of plaintiffs patent.

In response, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on November 29, 2018, and argued that plaintiffs’ patent claims are directed to an abstract idea and therefore fail to cover patentable subject matter.

The ‘852 patent relates to software for learning to play a musical instrument such as a guitar. The invention critiques traditional methods and learning tools for learning to play musical instruments as being limited in quality and overall lacking. The invention instead asserts that it provides an effective method to provide a method and system for learning and practicing a musical instrument. Plaintiffs claim that the invention improves on prior art because the invention is able to assess a user’s performance and change the difficulty level of a song based on the user’s performance.

According to the Supreme Court case Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v. CLS Bank Int’l, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible. The Alice analysis proceeds by using a two-step test. The first step requires a court to determine whether the patent claims at issue are directed toward an abstract idea. If they are, then the second step is utilized which asks the court to determine whether the patent contains an “inventive concept” which goes beyond the abstract unpatentable idea alone.

Upon inspection of the ‘852 patent, the Court decided that teaching a user how to play an instrument by evaluating their performance and generating exercises to improve this performance was an abstract idea that could not be patented simply by adding the presence of a computer. The most notable potential inventive concept in the patent relates to the claim which asserts that the program is able to change the difficulty level of a song in response to an assessment of the user’s performance. However, the Court also found this idea to be too vague and lacking innovation. All of the ideas put forth by this program simply mirrored the actions that could be taken by a conventional music teacher.

The Eastern District held that the claims at issue in the ‘852 patent were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept thereby failing the Alice test. As a result, the claims are patent-ineligible and the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Practice Point: Abstract ideas have been a challenge for both patentees and defendants since the Alice decision in 2014. After five years, we have begun to see clarity emerge from the Courts and the USPTO. Recent Federal Circuit decisions emphasize the importance of a story in patent applications that may toe the line on abstract ideas. A story of how the claimed inventions solves a technical problem and improves computing technology can sway the Judge’s opinion and save a claim that would otherwise be arguably directed to an abstract idea. The USPTO has gone further than the courts, issuing guidance in January this year that greatly limited the circumstances where patent examiners will issue an abstract idea rejection. Attacking claims as directed to abstract ideas remains a significant defense for those accused of patent infringement, though now it is subject to less uncertainty than before. – SK

For reference, claim 1 of the ‘852 patent reads:

1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program is operable to present an interactive game for playing a song on a guitar, wherein the computer program instructs one or more processors to perform the steps of: presenting, on a display device, a plurality of fingering notations corresponding to the song to be played by a user; receiving, from a guitar input device, an analog or digital audio signal when the guitar is played by the user, wherein the received signal corresponds to the song played by the user; assessing a performance of the song as played by the user, based on the assessed performance, determining a portion of the performance that should be improved; based on the assessed performance and the determined portion of the performance that should be improved, selectively changing a difficulty level of at least a portion of the presented plurality of fingering notations corresponding to the song; and generating at least one mini-game different from the game for the song being played targeted to improving the user’s skills associated with the performance of the determined portion.

Additional Information Provided by Scott Kelly

Sep

2018

U.S. Patent No. 9,120,016: Interactive guitar game designed for learning to play the guitar

Issued September 9, 2015, to Ubisoft Entertainment SA

Priority Date November 21, 2008

Summary:
In 2008, music rhythm games was a billion dollar industry with Guitar Hero and Rock Band leading the way. Rocksmith was Ubisoft’s answer to venture into the music rhythm games. While other games only let players pretend to be a rockstar, Rocksmith teaches the player how to play a real guitar by using the instrument as the controller. One of the problems during the development was how to translate the fretboard and chords into an easily understood gameplay interface. U.S. Patent No. 9,120,016 (the ‘016 Patent) addresses this issues and describes the gameplay mechanics of Rocksmith. Guitar Hero and Rock Band had addressed this issue by reducing the guitar down to a five button rhythm game, where button icons would travel down a vertical “note highway.” Rocksmith took the vertical “note highway” and combined it with a horizontal representation of the fretboard. As notes travel down the “highway,” the horizontal fretboard shifts left and right to the corresponding position on the guitar. Since all of the gameplay prompts corresponded with the actual chord positions on the guitar, a player must successfully play the song on a real guitar to succeed in the game.

The ‘016 Patent also describes a system that adjusts to the player’s skill and provides methods for the player to improve. If a player struggled with a particular portion of a song, Rocksmith would generate a mini-game related specifically to part troubling the player. The game also provides other forms of feedback to help the player learn how to play the guitar.

Abstract:
An interactive game designed for learning to play a guitar. A guitar may be connected to a computer or other platform, capable of loading music and displaying notes and chords and other feedback and visual learning aids on a display screen, allowing a user to read music and play along. The goal of the software or interactive game engine is for players to learn how to play a guitar. Users may operate the game in a number of modes with different goals, playing mini-games throughout the levels of the game. The game provides feedback and statistics to help users learn how to play the guitar.

Illustrative Claim:
5. An interactive guitar playing system as in claim 1, wherein the notation is presented in a timeline view, the timeline view having notation scrolling from right to left and a video in the background, wherein an audio output of the song is timed to the scrolling notation, and wherein the scrolling notation includes notes or chords that reach a hit area indicating to the user to play the notes or chords within the hit area.

Apr

2018

Microsoft, Ubisoft, Nintendo, EA, Harmonix, and Majesco win challenge of motion control patent

On April 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of defendants Microsoft Corporation, Ubisoft, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., and Majesco Entertainment in a patent infringement suit brought by Australian individual Richard J. Baker. The suit relates to Baker’s U.S. Patent No. 5,486,001, which relates to an instructional aid for movements. The accused products included video games that incorporated an image capturing device (like a camera) connected to a gaming console or personal computer.

The ’001 Patent reads, in claim 1 and as amended during prosecution:

capturing and storing initial visual image signals representative of a particular movement at a first location,

storing preferred image signals representative of a selected preferred movement at a second location remote from said first location in a data base of a computer,

transmitting said captured and stored visual image signals from said first location to said computer at said second location,

. . .

transmitting said regenerated signals from said computer at said remote second location to said first location and stored in image presentation means which permits viewing thereof with dialogue relating to said regenerated visual secondary image signals.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that “remote,” as used above, requires “more than physical separation at the same location.” The Federal Circuit found that this amendment prevented infringement by any of the defendants, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.

Cases like these emphasize the importance of careful patent prosecution. Per the Federal Circuit, the “first location” and “second limitation” language used above was added to traverse a reference (U.S. Patent No. 5,184,295 to Mann). Little changes like these, which invoke the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, can have significant ramifications during litigation, as demonstrated here. It’s game over for Mr. Baker in this case.

Feb

2018

Electronic Arts and Ubisoft Sued for Infringement of Database Differences Patent

On Feb. 8, 2018, Pure Data Systems, LLC (“Pure”) sued Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) and Ubisoft, Inc. (“Ubisoft”) for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,999,947 to Zollinger et al. and 6,321,236 to Zollinger et al.

Claim 1 of the ’947 Patent reads:

1. A method of distributing database differences corresponding to change events made to a database table located on a server computer to client copies of the database table located on one or more client computers comprising the steps of:
creating and storing on the server computer one or more sequentially versioned updates, each update containing database differences in a generic format, the database differences corresponding to database change events made to the database table since the preceding update;
receiving, from a client computer, a request for all the database differences needed to make the client copy of the database table current;
determining which updates are necessary for making the client copy of the database table current;
ascertaining a client database engine type wherein the client copy of the database table is held;
generating and translating specific database differences, selected based on the necessary updates, into instructions based on the ascertained database engine type prior to transmission; and
transmitting the specific database differences to the client computer so that the client computer may execute the instructions on the client database engine, thereby making the client copy of the database table current in response to the specific database differences translated into the instructions.

Pure claims that EA and Ubisoft infringe their patents via their “game library updates.” For example, “if a user
purchases a game through the [EA’s] Origin website using a browser, the user’s game library is updated on a server” such that “[w]hen the user next logs into the Origin client, those updates are transmitted to the Origin client running on the user’s computer.”

The lawsuits against EA and Ubisoft are different, likely due to venue issues, but the complaints are almost identical. Pure appears to have also filed similar complaints against Valve Corporation, the Fox News Network, Imgur, CNET, CNN, and Pinterest, among others.

Ubisoft Alleges Rainbow Six Siege Infringement by Ejoy.com

Ubisoft Alleges Rainbow Six Siege Infringement by Ejoy.com

Hard Rock Life for Video Game Music Teacher

Hard Rock Life for Video Game Music Teacher

U.S. Patent No. 9,120,016: Interactive guitar game designed for learning to play the guitar

U.S. Patent No. 9,120,016: Interactive guitar game designed for learning to play the guitar

Microsoft, Ubisoft, Nintendo, EA, Harmonix, and Majesco win challenge of motion control patent

Electronic Arts and Ubisoft Sued for Infringement of Database Differences Patent

Subscribe