Game makers of Grand theft Auto score a win at CAFC non infringement
On 4th October 2021 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) handed win to the game makers of Grand theft auto in a case claiming they trampled a software developer’s patents on networking technology, backing a lower court’s finding that two patents at issue were not infringed. CAFC affirmed in part the claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement ruling made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and dismissed-in-part Acceleration Bay LLC’s appeal against the makers of the Grand Theft Auto video game as moot.
In part, a three-judge board backed a lower court’s finding that Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. didn’t infringe two of the patent at-issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,910,069 and 6,920,497. In July of 2000, Acceleration Bay documented four licenses: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 the ‘344 patent, 6,714,966 the ‘966 patent, 6,910,069 the ‘069 patent and 6,920,497 the ‘497 patent. The patent are irrelevant yet share a comparable detail disclosing a networking technology that supposedly refines earlier methods for correspondence. In particular, the patent disclose a “broadcasting strategy in which a transmission station overlays a highlight point communication network.”
Acceleration Bay is suing Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard for infringement. At issue are NHL, FIFA, PGA Tour, Call of Duty and other popular games that offer online multiplayer modes. The lawsuits are in the same jurisdiction and will be governed by the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the Take-Two case.
The district court allowed judgment of non-infringement on each of the four patents at issue. The District court previously tended to Acceleration Bay’s theory of direct infringement of the ‘344, ‘966, and ‘497 patents. Further the district court found that Take Two didn’t infringe the ‘069 patent. The district court perceived that albeit the stated cases of the ‘069 patent didn’t unequivocally discuss the “m-regular” limitations, two separate terms of the ‘069 patent’s cases had been constructed to incorporate the limitation. The court then, at that point, clarified that this constraint was basic in the infringement examination and that Acceleration Bay failed to show there was a genuine dispute regarding whether the accused video games incorporated this limitation. Following this choice, Acceleration Bay appealed, testing the outline judgment of non-infringement concerning the ‘344, ‘966, ‘498, and ‘069 patent. The CAFC reasoned that “it is recognizable from Centrak, on the grounds that Acceleration Bay doesn’t Contented that Take Two makes and introduces installs hardware into an existing network to complete a claimed system.” Therefore, the CAFC affirmed the synopsis judgment allowing non-infringement.