Virtual World Law Blog

Everglades Interactive, LLC has filed a patent litigation against a number of social game companies for alleged infringement of USP 6,656,050. The patent is entitled "Odds Accelerator for Promotional Type Sweepstakes, Games, and Contests."

A sample claim of the patent is as follows:

A method enabling at least one player to increase a likelihood of winning at least one of a collect-and-win game and a match-and-win game promotion while simultaneously increasing an appeal of said game to the player and thus making a substantially more valuable system for a promoter, comprising the steps of:
providing at least one game piece to at least one player;
applying said game piece to an appropriate game board at a game site;
making game piece information available to said player, said game piece information indicative of needed game pieces needed to complete a winning combination of game pieces to thereby win said game, whereby the player may share or trade game pieces with at least one other player,
enabling said player and said other player to easily and securely store said game pieces for future use.

The patent is based on a provisional application (2001/0028708) which was filed on August 4, 2000, and a utility application (09/920,940) which was filed on August 3, 2001. Based on our preliminary research, this patent will be heavily attacked for invalidity based on prior art that easily predates this patent. It will also face challenges for failing to constitute patent eligible subject matter under Section 101 under the recently announced test in the Bilski case.

The number of social game-related patent applications and patent lawsuits being file is increasing. Yet, many companies in this space have not focused much on patents. This and other recent activity, such as Zynga's attempt to patent aspects of using virtual currency (see our prior blog post), should be catalyst to cause more companies to ensure that they are considering patent protection for their social games offerings and taking steps to minimize liability for infringement of others' patents.

E-mail us for a free guide on patent and other IP strategies for social games companies.

There has been much buzz about Zynga's attempt to patent virtual currency. As is often the case with patents, there is much hype, many misconceptions and little focus on the actual facts. Here are the facts.

1. Zynga does not have a patent on virtual currency. It has applied for a patent, the application has been published but has not yet been examined. It will be some time, if ever, before a patent will issue. The published application is 2010-0227675. Here is a copy of the Zynga Application.

2. Zynga is seeking protection for various aspects of virtual currency, particularly in the context of "gambling" games. The following is an example of one of the claims:

A method, comprising:receiving, at a server, a purchase order for virtual currency from a player, wherein the purchase order was made with legal currency, and wherein the virtual currency is usable within the context of a computer-implemented game;crediting an account of the player with virtual currency, wherein the virtual currency is not redeemable for legal currency;receiving a second purchase order for a virtual object within the context of the computer-implemented game from the player, wherein the second purchase order was made with virtual currency; and debiting the account of the player based on the second purchase order.

3. This claim appears to be seeking protection using real money to buy virtual currency, precluding redemption of the virtual currency for real money but enabling it to be used to buy virtual objects in the game.

4. The patent application was filed 03-03-2010 and claims priority to a provisional application 61/158,246 filed March 6, 2009.

5. We will monitor the status of this application as it is examined and any rejections are made.

While many believe that this patent application will be rejected due to prior art, the most important take aways are these:

• MANY ASPECTS OF SOCIAL GAMES ARE POTENTIALLY PATENTABLE
  
• ZYNGA (AND OTHERS) ARE PURSUING MORE PATENTS IN THIS SPACE
• IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THERE IS A LOT OF "BORROWING" OF IDEAS FROM COMPETITORS IN THE SOCIAL GAME SPACE
• THIS HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY LACK OF ATTENTION TO IP PROTECTION
  
• IT IS CRITICAL FOR ANYONE OPERATING IN THE SOCIAL GAMING SPACE TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE IP PROTECTION STRATEGY,  INCLUDING PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS

E-mail us for a free guide on patent and other IP strategies in the social game space.

Apple recently announced a hockey-puck-size AppleTV device. Early adopters seem to love the video-management and TV program and movie download features. But what may be even more important in the future is a feature called AirPlay.This feature essentially turns the AppleTV into a gaming console that can compete with the Sony (SNE) PS3, the Microsoft (MSFT) XBox and the Nintendo (NTDOY) Wii, among others. At $99 and over a quarter of a million units sold in 2 months, it seems to have some momentum. This will be an interesting development to watch as the gaming space continues to evolve.

EA has defeated Edge Games' attempt to broadly assert rights in the word "EDGE" in connection with video games. Edge sued Electronic Arts for trademark infringement, alleging that EA's use of "MIRROR'S EDGE" for video games infringed its trademark rights. EA countered that Dr. Langdell and Edge committed fraud on the USPTO by submitting false/doctored specimens of use and making false representations regarding use of its marks. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Edge's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that all of Edge's "representations regarding the validity and use of the asserted marks are infected by evidence of deceit." Edge Games, Inc. v. Electronics Art, Inc., Civil Action No. c10-02614 WHA (N.D. Cal. October 1, 2010).

The case promptly and on October 10, 2010, the Court entered a Final Judgment (here) and an Order approving the parties' stipulation regarding the disposition of the claims (here). In the Judgment, the Court ordered the USPTO to cancel five registrations owned by Edge. The Order required Edge to notify its licenses that the marks [sic] have been cancelled, and to provide them with a copy of the order denying Edge's motion for preliminary injunction.