by Dennis Crouch

Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

The attraction below stems from three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings — every cancelling the claims of aseparate Worlds’ patent. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,856 8,082,501 and 8,145,998. The Worlds’ patents contain methods and systems for exhibiting avatars inside a digital setting and claim precedence back to a 1995 provisional patent software.

The attraction below does not focus on the merits of the scenario but somewhat whether or not the IPR proceedings had been time barred.  I.e., whether or not the patentee’s nonetheless-pending lawsuit towards Bungie’s contracting spouse Activision will block Bungie from pursuing its IPR. 

35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is fairly distinct — “an inter partes critique may possibly not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is submitted extra than 1 12 months immediately after the date on which the petitioner, authentic get together in curiosity, or privy of the petitioner is served with a criticism alleging infringement of the patent.”

Here, the petitioner Bungie was under no circumstances sued for infringing the patents.  Nonetheless, recreation distributor Activision was sued for infringement 2012 for its Entire world of
Warcraft video games.  Bungie develops digital-entire world video games these types of as Halo — and distributes these video games via a deal with Activision. Back in 2014, Worlds notified Activision that it prepared to insert the Bungie products to the lawsuits.  In just six months, Bungie submitted the IPRs at problem below. The Activision lawsuit is ongoing – however it was conveniently stayed pending consequence of the Bungie IPR.

In the IPR, the patentee Worlds asked for discovery on the relationship amongst Bungie and Activision in purchase to determine whether or not Activision could be deemed a “real get together in interest” or “privy.” Nonetheless, that ask for was summarily denied and the PTAB concluded that the patentee “has not demonstrated that Activision is an unnamed authentic get together in curiosity in this proceeding.”

On attraction, the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded — holding that the PTAB must have investigated the connection amongst the IPR petitioner (Bungie) and the prior litigant (Activision) and that the PTAB must have stated its reasoning.

Absent from the Board’s assessment of the authentic-get together-in interest issue is any distinct statement of what, if any, burden framework the Board used to examine the proof introduced in these IPRs, which includes an identification of which get together the Board seen as bearing the stress of persuasion.

In its determination, the court produced numerous vital findings:

  • An “IPR petitioner bears the best stress of persuasion to present that its petitions are not time-barred underneath § 315(b).” Nonetheless, an IPR petitioner’s identification of the authentic get-togethers in curiosity in the petition papers will ordinarily provide as prima facie proof assembly this stress.  At that stage, the patentee must make some proof to aid its rivalry if not.
  • Observe below, that the preliminary statement by the patentee does not produce a “presumption” but only serves as an preliminary setting up stage for the assessment. The court explains: “[i]nstead of viewing this as a presumption, we basically view this as sensible. In shorter, we see no rationale for the Board to problem an IPR petitioner’s identification of the authentic get-togethers in curiosity unless and until a patent owner has picked out to raise the problem.”
  • In purchase to adequately “raise the issue”, a patentee will need to offer “some evidence” exhibiting that a specially 3rd-get together must be named as a authentic-get together-in-curiosity. The court expressly refused to condition the “quantum” of proof expected — but recommended that it may well abide by the PTAB’s prior ruling that proof must “reasonably provides into problem the accuracy of a petitioner’s identification of the authentic get-togethers in curiosity.”  Observe — this prerequisite is obviously considerably less than a preponderance of the proof.

Here, the court identified that the patent owner “presented extra than sufficient proof to sufficiently place this problem into dispute.”  The proof below was:

  1. Worlds pointed to a distinct get together it noticed as a authentic-get together-in-curiosity — Activision.
  2. Worlds delivered proof of a improvement-distribution arrangement amongst petitioner Bungie and Activision. This arrangement placed an obligation on Bungie to distinct-rights for its products dispersed by Activision and also delivered Activision with means to critique and approve the clearance
  3. Worlds delivered proof that it experienced delivered observe to Activision relating to its intent to insert Bungie products to the Activision litigation and
  4. The patents challenged by Bungie are the precise similar patents that are the issue make any difference of the pending litigation with Activision.

The Federal Circuit noticed this proof as enough to power the Board’s hand and no longer basically count upon the petition’s statement in a conclusory judgment.  Rather, at that stage the Board must have deemed the proof and expressly produced “the factual determinations required to assess whether or not Bungie experienced glad its stress to display that its petition was not time-barred dependent on the problems served upon Activision, the alleged authentic get together in curiosity.”

On remand, the Board will rethink its the authentic-get together-in-curiosity determination — placing the best stress of persuasion on the IPR petitioner.

Vacated and Remanded.

= = = = =

Declare 1 of the ‘856 patents is detailed underneath:

1. A system for enabling a 1st person to interact with next users in a digital house, wherein the 1st person is linked with at 1st avatar and a 1st consumer course of action, the 1st consumer course of action staying configured for interaction with a server course of action, and every next person is linked with a various next avatar and a next consumer course of action configured for interaction with the server course of action, at least one particular next consumer course of action for each next person, the system comprising:

(a) getting by the 1st consumer course of action from the server course of action obtained positions of selected next avatars and

(b) determining, from the obtained positions, a set of the next avatars that are to be shown to the 1st person

wherein the 1st consumer course of action receives positions of less than all of the next avatars.

Shares 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: