11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

PatentingofGames

by:
stevehansen
on:
November13,2012
in:
PatentPreparationandProsecution,Patents

PatentingofGames
0Comments
GrowingupinaprecableTVworld,IplayedalotofgamessuchasMonopoly,
Clue,Life,Chutes&Ladders,Checkers,Chessandcountlessothers.Withallofthe
casescomingoutaboutstatutorysubjectmatterinthelastfewyears,Iwondered
underwhatcircumstancesgamescouldbepatented.Asitturnsout,theU.S.Patent
&TrademarkOfficehasissuedover15,000patentswiththewordgameinthe
title.Inaddition,theManualofPatentClassificationincludestwoclasses,273and
463,entitledAmusementDevices:Games.BeforetheBilskidecision,thePatent
Officefrequentlyrejectedpatentclaimsthatdidnotreciteamachineor
transformation,whichatfirstblushwouldseeminglyexcludemanygamesfrom
patenteligibilityunder35U.S.C.101.However,casessuchasBilskiand
Prometheusdonotdirectlyaddresspatentprotectionforgames.Thus,basedonthe
generalprohibitionagainstpatentingabstractideaslaiddowninthosecasesand
preexistinglawdealingwithgames,herearesomegeneralguidelinesforobtaining
patentprotectionforgames.
WhatCannotBePatentedtheRulesofGamesAlone
PatentOfficepolicyholdsthatgamesdefinedasasetofrulesarenoteligiblefor
patentprotection.ManualofPatentExaminingProcedure(MPEP)Section2106(I).
Thus,amethodclaimthatdefinesnothingmorethantherulesofagamerequiring
anythingtangiblewilllikelybedeemedunpatentable.Thus,therulesenougharenot
alonetoobtainpatentprotection,eveniftheyaresufficientlynew(i.e.,noveland
nonobvious).
WhatCanBePatentedArticlesofManufacture
Unlikethemererulesofagame,thephysicalcomponentsusedtoplaythegamemay
provideabasisforobtainingpatentprotection.Forexample,thegamepieces,the
gameboard,oranyotherphysicalcomponentsusedtoplaythegamemayconstitute
anarticleofmanufacture,whichunderthepatentstatuteissomethingthatcan
http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

1/6

11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

potentiallybepatented.Inaddition,manygamesincludeanelectroniccomponent
thatwouldconstituteanarticleofmanufacture.Aslongastheclaimsofthepatent
applicationincludeoneormoreofthesephysicalcomponents,thegamemaybe
patenteligible,meaningitwouldnotberuledoutasacandidateforpatentprotection.
However,thereisawrinkle.Beingpatenteligiblesimplymeansthatthesubject
matteroftheinventionisthetypeofthingthatcanbepatented.Oncethathurdleis
cleared,thegamemuststillbenovelandnonobvious.Iftheboardorgamepieces
haveauniquephysicalstructure,thenthegamemayalsopasstheserequirementsfor
patentprotection.However,thesituationisdifferentiftheonlydifferencebetween
thepriorart(i.e.,earliergamesorpatentsandpatentapplicationsdescribingthem)
andyourgameistheprintingonthegameboard.
PatentOfficepolicyisthatprintedmatterbyitselfisnotpatenteligibleandthat
[w]heretheonlydifferencebetweenapriorartproductandaclaimedproductis
printedmatterthatisnotfunctionallyrelatedtotheproduct,thecontentoftheprinted
matterwillnotdistinguishtheclaimedproductfromthepriorart.ManualofPatent
ExaminingProcedureSections2106(I)and2112.01(III).ThePatentOfficepolicyis
based,atleastinpart,onthecaseInreGulack,703F.2d1381(Fed.Cir.1983).In
thatcase,thegameincludedabandorsetorringswithseveraldigitsimprintedat
regularlyspacedintervals.Theparticulardigitsweredefinedbyanalgorithminthe
applicantspatentclaims.Thebandorringsweresufficienttoovercomethepatent
eligibilityorstatutorysubjectmatterhurdle.However,thepriorartincluded
bandswithprintedinformation.TheBoardofPatentAppealsandInterferences
determinedthattheonlydifferencebetweenthepriorartandtheclaimedringswas
theprintedmatterandthattheprintedmatterhadnofunctionalrelationshiptothe
band.TheFederalCircuitCourtofAppealsdisagreed,statingthatthecritical
questioniswhetherthereexistsanynewandunobviousfunctionalrelationship
betweentheprintedmatterandthesubstrate.Id.at1386.TheCourtheldthatthe
digitsprintedontheapplicantsbandwererelatedtothebandintwoways:(1)the
bandsupportsthedigits,and(2)thedigitsformedanendlesssequence,witheach
digitresidinginauniquepositionwithrespecttoeveryotherdigitinanendless
loop.Incontrast,thepriorartbandincludeddataitemsthatwereindependent,
bearingnodirectrelationtotheotherdataentriesonthebandandwhichwerenot
arrangedinanyparticularsequence.Id.
Thereisadifferencebetweenprintedmatterthatisfunctionallyrelatedtothe
substrateandprintedmatterthatisfunctionallyrelatedtotherulesofthegame.In
theFederalCircuitsnonprecedentialdecisioninInreBryan,2009U.S.App.
LEXIS6667(Fed.Cir.2009)theapplicantsoughttopatentagameboardandgame
havingatouringbandtheme.Theapplicantsclaimsrecitedaboardhavinga
particularlayout,aseriesoftokens,asupplyofmoney,andadeckofcardscalled
Consequencecards.ThePatentOfficefoundapieceofpriorartthatdisclosedthe
samefeaturesexceptfortheprintedmatteronthedeckofcards.Theapplicant
arguedthattheclaimwaspatentableoverthepriorartbecausetheprintedmatter
allowedthecardstobeusedinacertainwayinplayingthegame.However,the
courtrejectedthatargument,notingthatifweweretoaccept
[applicants]argument,itseemsanyonecouldpatentthestructureofapreexisting
gamesimplybychangingthegamesthemewithoutchangingitsstructure.Id.at*8.
StrategyTips
http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

2/6

11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

Thereisadearthoflegaldecisionsdealingwithattemptstopatentgames.In
general,gamesthathavesomephysicalcomponentsareeligibleforpatent
protection.However,ifthecontentofthegameiswhatdistinguishesitfromearlier
games,thenitwillbeimportanttofunctionallylinkprintedmatterdescribingthe
contenttothesubstrateonwhichitisprintedinawaythatdistinguishestheprior
art.Ofcourse,novelgamepieces,otherdevices,boardshapes,andpossiblyeven
colorarrangementscouldalsoimpartpatentability.Yet,iftheonlydifference
betweenyourgameandthepriorartisthecontentofwhatisprintedonthegame
board,andthereisnothingspecialaboutthegameboardstructureitself,obtaining
patentprotectionmaybedifficult.
Gamescanbepatentedwithkitclaimswhereinthecombinationofcomponents
usedtoplaythegameisthebasisforpatentability.Again,however,theprinted
matterdoctrinemustbekeptinmindbecauseifthepriorartwouldhavesuggested
combiningsimilarcomponents,themerethematiccontentofyourgamemaynotbe
sufficienttoovercomeanobviousnessrejection.
Onethingthatremainstobeseeniswhetherorhowtherecentstatutorysubject
matterjurisprudencewillaffectthetreatmentofgames.Aswereportedearlier,the
Prometheuscourtignoredwhatwasoldintheartwhenevaluatingmedical
diagnosticclaimsforpatenteligibility.Whetherthatholdingfurtherlimitstheextent
towhichgamesmaybepatentedremainstobeseen.
RecommendonFacebook
ShareonLinkedin
Tweetaboutit
Tellafriend

PostaReply
Name:*

Email:*
YourComment:

Website:

AddComment

Subscribetoourblog

RecentPosts
EmployeesWhoAssignPatentRightstoEmployersMayHaveStandingto
ChallengeOmissionasInventors
EnBancFederalCircuitClarifiesDividedInfringementRules
FederalCircuitDecisionConcerningMeansPlusFunctionClaiming
http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

3/6

11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

ActiveInducementofInfringement:AGoodFaithBeliefinInvalidityisNota
Defense
Categories
CasesintheNews
ClaimConstruction
Damages
ForeignPatenting
Infringement
Invalidity
Licensing
PatentInfringement
PatentInvalidity
PatentLitigation
PatentPreparationandProsecution
Patentability
Patents
PortfolioDevelopmentandInnovation
ReexaminationandPostGrantReview
Trademarks
Uncategorized
Archives
October2015(1)
August2015(1)
July2015(1)
June2015(1)
May2015(1)
April2015(1)
February2015(1)
January2015(1)
December2014(1)
October2014(1)
September2014(1)
August2014(1)
July2014(1)
June2014(3)
May2014(1)
April2014(1)
March2014(1)
February2014(1)
January2014(2)
December2013(1)
November2013(2)
October2013(1)
September2013(1)
August2013(1)
July2013(1)
http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

4/6

11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

June2013(1)
May2013(1)
April2013(2)
February2013(3)
January2013(1)
December2012(2)
November2012(4)
October2012(1)
September2012(4)
August2012(2)
July2012(4)
June2012(4)
May2012(4)
April2012(5)
March2012(6)
February2012(7)
January2012(7)
Tags

AIAAmericaInventsActAmericaInventsAct(AIA)BusinessMethodscars

claimconstructioncopyrightcosmeticsdeclaratoryjudgmentdesignpatentsdirect
Infringementdiscoverydividedinfringementexpeditedexaminationforeignpatentsgreen

IndefinitenessInducementofInfringementinequitableconduct

technologyhaircare

inventorshiplicensingnonobviousnessnonpracticingentitiesNPEsopinionofcounselpatent

patentabilitypatentinvaliditypatentlawyerpatentlawyersPatent

litigationpatentportfoliodevelopmentpatent
prosecutionpatentspatentsearchreexaminationrenewableenergyrighttousesoftware

StatutorySubjectMatter

tradedresstrademarkstrolls

willful

infringement
RecentPosts

fromtheblog
EmployeesWhoAssignPatentRightstoEmployersMayHaveStandingto
ChallengeOmissionasInventors
Employersdonot...
ReadMore
EnBancFederalCircuitClarifiesDividedInfringementRules
Lastweek,theCo...
ReadMore
http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

5/6

11/4/2015

HansenIPLawPatentingofGames

Hansen
LikePage

SignupforourNewsletter
Email:

GO

ContactInfo

contactustoday!
OurLocation:
2550TelegraphRoadSuite112
BloomfieldHills,MI48302
ContactInfo:
Phone:(248)5044849
Fax:(248)5044213
srh@hanseniplaw.com
ContactForm

wecanhelpyoutoday!
Name:

Email:

Message:

SendMessage

Copyright2012HansenIPLaw.AllRightsReserved.|
design:LinkNowMedia

http://hanseniplaw.com/patentingofgames/

6/6