November 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 333

Advertisement

November 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Failure to Launch: Not Identifying the Proper Parties Can Prematurely End an Video Game IPR Challenge

Most video game patents that are asserted in litigation are also challenged at the PTAB through IPR or PGR petitions. Patent Owners looking for new ways attack such challenges have turned to the failure to disclose real-parties-in-interest (“RPI”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), “[a] petition . . . may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies all real parties in interest[.]” Additionally, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” These requirements can pose unique questions for video game companies based on their relationships and business process. 

For example, in World v. Bungie, the patent owner argued that petitioner Bungie failed to disclose Activision as an RPI, relying on a DevPub agreement between the two companies. The patent owner also argued that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), the one-year time bar had lapsed for filing an IPR petition because Activision had been served over a year before Bungie filed its petition. In the underlying litigation, the game Destiny had been accused of infringement, and a DevPub agreement contemplated financial support from Activision to Bungie for Destiny products, as well as legal review rights. Although the PTAB found that there was no failure to disclose a real-party-in-interest, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded in September, requiring the PTAB to conduct a further analysis regarding the potential RPI issues. The Federal Circuit also noted that the burden to demonstrate that there was no RPI issue fell upon a Petitioner once a Patent Owner had raised a particular company that arguably should have been disclosed.

The Federal Circuit also just decided that it would not review PTAB decisions denying institution based upon a failure to disclose real parties in interest. ARRIS Int’l. PLC v. Chanbond, LLC, (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2018). Given the frequent overlap in studios and companies involved in developing particular games, the RPI issue requires careful attention from gaming companies.

Key Takeaways:

  • Carefully investigate what products are accused in a case.

  • Determine whether DevPub or other agreements show intertwining relationships between companies.

  • Analyze RPI issues to avoid termination of an otherwise quality PTAB challenge.

  • Watch for time bar deadlines to avoid RPI disputes.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 36
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Harper Batts, Sheppard Mullin, Patent lawyer
Partner

Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Harper has more than a decade of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Numerous Fortune 50 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent litigation disputes in many different venues, including Texas, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and the Federal Circuit. His experience includes leading several large joint defense groups in complex...

1.650.815.2673
Chris Ponder Intellectual Property Attorney
Special Counsel

Chris Ponder is a Special Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Ponder's practice focuses on complex patent and business litigation that often involves competitors. His litigation experience includes conducting and managing fact and expert discovery, and developing claims and defenses. Mr. Ponder has extensive experience in motion advocacy, and routinely argues motions in federal court. He has taken depositions of high-level corporate executives (including a chief operating officer, a...

650.815.2676
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement