Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
2014 WL 972135 (2014)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Worlds, Inc. (plaintiff) created the software products Worlds Chat and AlphaWorld and filed patents for an invention enabling large numbers of computer users to interact over a client-server network in a virtual world displayed on a screen. Worlds first filed a provisional application in 1995. The ’045 patent was filed in 1996 but did not directly reference or claim priority to the provisional application. However, the provisional application was mentioned in prosecution-history documents. Worlds filed the ’690 patent in 2000 as a continuation of the ’045 patent, but the ’690 patent did not reference the provision application. The ’558 patent was filed in 2006 as a continuation of the ’690 patent, and its first sentence claimed priority from the provisional application. The ’856, ’501, and ’998 patents were filed in 2009 as continuations of the patent chain, and the first sentence of each patent claimed priority from the provisional application. Worlds Chat and AlphaWorld practiced all of the ’690, ’558, ’856, ’501, and ’998 patent claims and were in public use more than one year prior to the filing date of the ’045 patent. Worlds sued Activision Blizzard, Inc. and its related companies (defendants) for infringing the ’690, ’558, ’856, ’501, and ’998 patents with massive multiplayer online role-playing games. Activision Blizzard filed for summary judgment arguing that the asserted claims in the listed patents were invalid.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Casper, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.