Multi-Player Gaming Patent Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the asserted claims of plaintiff’s multi-player gaming patent for unpatentable subject matter and found that defendant failed to establish that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea. "[T]he [patent-in-suit] is directed to the 'idea of multi-player gaming using a hand-held controller that has a display screen where the players are also in front of a shared display.' Defendant has not pointed to any authority compelling the conclusion that such an idea, which is by definition limited to the field of multi-player gaming and which requires the use of multiple hardware components . . . is 'abstract' within the meaning of Section 101. Moreover, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff 'does not actually explain how any of the components identified by [Defendant] are not generic, let alone why any of those components actually make the claim less abstract under Step One' misreads Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, which make clear that 'recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible,' but do not broadly hold that courts must 'strip away' each claim element that recites hardware containing computing elements, such as a video game controller, when performing step one of the Alice/Mayo test."

TimePlay, Inc. v. Audience Entertainment LLC, 2-15-cv-05202 (CACD November 10, 2015, Order) (Otero, J.)