GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy

The patent litigation involves GREE, Inc., a Japanese social media and video game company known for pioneering mobile social gaming and the "freemium" model, as the plaintiff. The defendant is Supercell Oy, a Finnish mobile game developer recognized for popular titles like "Clash of Clans," "Hay Day," and "Clash Royale." These mobile games are the accused products, with GREE alleging they infringe on features such as virtual battles, in-game item acquisition, and social gameplay mechanics. Both parties are operating companies in the highly competitive mobile gaming industry.

The asserted patents in case 2:19-cv-00311 are US Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439. US Patent No. 9,079,107 generally describes a computer-implemented social game system allowing multiple users to form groups ("guilds") and engage in virtual battles. US Patent No. 9,561,439 focuses on a system for controlling game content and operations, particularly regarding the frequency of acquiring virtual items and storing user/game piece information.

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is notable in patent litigation for its reputation as a "rocket docket" with a history of plaintiff-friendly verdicts, fast trials, and a local set of rules tailored for patent cases, making it an attractive forum for patent holders. The case is particularly notable for the substantial jury awards, totaling over $100 million, and the findings of willful infringement against Supercell. This litigation also occurred alongside multiple parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of GREE's patents, highlighting the common strategy of employing both district court litigation and IPRs in complex patent disputes within the tech industry.

The patent infringement litigation between GREE, Inc. and Supercell Oy, case number 2:19-cv-00311, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involved US Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439. The case ultimately resulted in two jury verdicts favoring GREE and a subsequent settlement.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing: GREE, Inc. filed its complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439 by Supercell's mobile games, including Clash Royale, Clash of Clans, and Hay Day. While the precise filing date for 2:19-cv-00311 is not explicitly provided in the search results, it was filed in 2019.
• Infringement Contentions: GREE served its initial infringement contentions on January 28, 2020, and later served amended infringement contentions on August 3, 2020.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Specific dates for Supercell's answer and counterclaims for this case number are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, though Supercell did assert counterclaims of invalidity which were addressed in the second trial.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Trial Continuance (COVID-19): Supercell's motion to continue the original August 3, 2020, jury trial date was granted, moving the trial to September 14, 2020, due to concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. A renewed motion for continuance by Supercell, filed "roughly 36 hours before jury selection," was denied around September 2020.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Order: A Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, addressing claim construction disputes for both 2:19-cv-00310 and 2:19-cv-00311, was signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on October 12, 2020.
• Motion to Strike Expert Opinions: Supercell's motion to strike portions of GREE's technical expert Dr. Robert Akl's infringement opinions regarding previously undisclosed infringement theories was denied on February 11, 2021.
• Motion to Compel Depositions: GREE's motion to compel trial depositions by February 22, 2021, was granted on February 19, 2021.
• Summary Judgment of Invalidity (§ 101): A Report and Recommendation denying Supercell's motions for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was entered on April 16, 2021, and this recommendation was adopted by the court on April 29, 2021. This decision applied to case number 2:19-cv-00311, among others.
• Motions in Limine (PTAB Proceedings): In April 2021, during the final pretrial conference, GREE filed motions in limine to exclude evidence or argument of PTAB proceedings. The court granted this motion in part, precluding references to terms like "inter partes reviews," "IPR," "Patent Trial and Appeal Board," and "PTAB," but allowed for limited references to Supercell's challenges to GREE's patents for purposes of notice and pre-issuance damages.

Discovery Milestones:

• GREE's infringement contentions were served on January 28, 2020, and amended on August 3, 2020. Disputes over late-disclosed source code led to a court order in March 2021, where the court struck portions of Supercell's expert report related to delayed production of certain source code (Mafia Wars) while allowing other disclosures (Farmville, certain other EA source code) under specific conditions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• First Jury Trial & Verdict (September 2020): A jury trial for Case No. 2:19-cv-00311, among other related cases, was held from September 10-18, 2020. The jury returned a verdict finding willful infringement and awarded GREE $8.5 million in lump-sum damages for past and future sales. This verdict involved five asserted patents.
• Second Jury Trial & Verdict (May 2021): Another jury trial for Case No. 2:19-cv-00311, also encompassing related cases, was conducted from April 30 - May 7, 2021. The jury found that Supercell had infringed on at least one asserted claim of the patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439. The jury also found the infringement to be willful and awarded GREE $92,176,058 for past and future sales. Furthermore, the jury concluded that Supercell had not proven the asserted claims invalid, thus denying Supercell's invalidity counterclaims.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement: Supercell had announced plans to appeal the $92.2 million decision. However, in July 2021, GREE and Supercell reached an undisclosed settlement that resolved all pending disputes between them, including nine federal district court cases and various PTAB actions.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Prior PTAB Challenges (Other Patents): Supercell filed multiple IPR and PGR petitions against GREE's patents. For instance, Supercell challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (a related patent not at issue in 2:19-cv-00311) in a Post-Grant Review. The PTAB found most claims ineligible, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part on November 19, 2020.
• Institution Denials (Fintiv): The PTAB denied institution of IPRs filed by Supercell against other patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,795,873 and 9,774,655) in June 2020, applying its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (known as Fintiv factors) due to the advanced stage of parallel district court proceedings.
• GREE's IPR Success: GREE, Inc. successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR2019-00086) against a patent asserted by Supercell against GREE, with the PTAB canceling all challenged claims.
• PTAB Impact on Litigation: The district court's April 2021 order on motions in limine generally restricted references to PTAB proceedings in front of the jury, with a narrow exception for Supercell to reference challenges to GREE's patents for purposes of notice and pre-issuance damages. Patents 9,079,107 and 9,561,439 were involved in various PTAB proceedings, including discussions about claim construction and infringement contentions.

Here is the counsel of record representing GREE, Inc. in GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Case No. 2:19-cv-00311:

• Michael T. Morlock

  • Role: Member of the trial team (likely lead counsel or key trial counsel). He was identified as a member of the trial team that represented GREE, Inc. in a series of patent infringement suits resulting in over $100 million in jury verdicts. He was also recognized as a top patent practitioner in 2024 and 2025 by IAM Patent 1000.
  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Kilpatrick Townsend has a significant patent litigation presence, including in the Eastern District of Texas. His profile indicates extensive experience litigating in federal courts throughout the country, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Focuses on patent law in the electronics and software industries, including patent litigation and PTAB challenges. He was a member of the trial team for GREE, Inc. against Supercell Oy, which secured over $100 million in jury verdicts. He also represented clients in other significant patent cases, including challenging a patent related to camera technology in an IPR and representing Red Hat, Inc., Amazon.com, and others in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Alton L. Absher III

  • Role: Member of the trial team (likely lead counsel or key trial counsel). He was part of the Kilpatrick Townsend team that obtained two jury verdicts for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas, totaling over $100 million in damages for willful infringement against Supercell.
  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but his work in the Eastern District of Texas is highlighted.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: A registered patent attorney with expertise in computer science and experience as a software engineer, specializing in matters involving computer hardware and software, smartphones, and telecommunications standards. He represented GREE, Inc. in the patent infringement suits against Supercell, which led to significant jury verdicts. He has also represented clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Joshua H. Lee

  • Role: Member of the trial team (likely key trial counsel). He was part of the Kilpatrick team that obtained both jury verdicts for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas, totaling over $100 million in damages.
  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but his work in the Eastern District of Texas is highlighted.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Represented GREE, Inc. in its large-scale patent battle against Supercell, which included district court litigations and PTAB proceedings, resulting in significant jury verdicts for GREE and favorable PTAB outcomes, including cancellation of challenged claims after his oral argument. He also represented Motorola Mobility in a patent infringement defense in the Western District of Texas.

Based on the available information, the counsel of record representing Supercell Oy in GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Case No. 2:19-cv-00311, includes attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and local counsel from Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry).

Here are the identified attorneys for the defendant, Supercell Oy:

Lead Counsel (and others identified through filings/reports):

• Darin W. Snyder (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience: Engineers winning litigation strategies for companies in patent, trade secrets, and technology-intensive copyright disputes; has over 30 years of trial experience with victories at trial, pre-trial, and on appeal. He has been recognized as "Intellectual Property Litigator of the Year" and "Litigator of the Year - California". He successfully defended Google in a D. Del. patent infringement case that formed the basis of a Netflix mini-series, "The Billion Dollar Code."
• Michael J. Berta (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret litigation across a range of technologies such as data storage, networking, microprocessors, and software; has tried cases before judges and juries in federal court and the International Trade Commission. He has represented clients like Adobe Inc. and Crocs Inc.
• Adrienna Wong (Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (prior to joining ACLU of Southern California in 2014, suggesting she may have been involved in earlier stages or related matters, but current firm is not O'Melveny). Self-correction: While an Adrienna Wong is listed at O'Melveny in some general searches (without a specific office location), other sources indicate Adrienna Wong is a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, with a past as an Arthur Liman Fellow. I will assume this is not the same Adrienna Wong associated with O'Melveny for patent litigation, or her role would be historical and not current. I need to be careful not to conflate individuals.
  • Correction for Adrienna Wong: The searches for Adrienna Wong primarily link to her work with the ACLU and her background in public interest law, not patent litigation for O'Melveny in this specific case. Therefore, she should not be listed as counsel of record for Supercell in this patent case.
• Andrew P. Marks (Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (office location not specified in immediate search results for this case, but typically San Francisco or Silicon Valley for patent litigators in this context).
  • Experience: The initial search did not yield specific patent litigation experience or notable cases for an Andrew P. Marks at O'Melveny & Myers in the context of GREE v. Supercell. This name appeared in general searches related to O'Melveny, but without a direct link to this specific case or patent experience. Therefore, further specific confirmation is needed. Self-correction: Andrew P. Marks is not strongly linked to this specific case as counsel of record for Supercell in the search results.
• Michael B. Lee (Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Connie P. Lee in Washington, D.C., focusing on biotech/pharma, and Michael H. Lee at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who represents high-tech companies in patent litigation. Another Michael Lee is at Google, and another at Beyer Law Group. Given the search results that listed "Michael J Sacksteder representing SUPERCELL OY" and "Michael T Morlock representing GREE, INC." in a trial schedule for a related case, and "Michael J Sacksteder" from Fenwick & West LLP for Supercell in a PTAB appeal, it is more likely that if a Michael Lee was involved, it would be explicitly stated as such, or the Michael B. Lee at O'Melveny is not the primary Michael Lee involved in this specific litigation for Supercell. I need to refine the search to confirm Michael B. Lee's direct involvement and role for Supercell in this specific case.*
  • Correction for Michael B. Lee: Similar to Adrienna Wong and Andrew P. Marks, while several "Michael Lee" attorneys exist, the provided search results do not definitively link a "Michael B. Lee" from O'Melveny & Myers as counsel of record for Supercell in GREE v. Supercell (2:19-cv-00311) with specific experience for this client in this case. Michael J. Sacksteder from Fenwick & West is consistently mentioned for Supercell.
• Mark Liang (Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (office location not specified, but often in technology hubs).
  • Experience: Focuses on patent and technology-related litigation, leveraging an electrical engineering background. Has experience in all stages of patent cases, including claim construction, discovery, dispositive motions, trial, post-trial, and appeal. Has litigated over one hundred patent matters in district courts and eight ITC investigations, including successful trial teams in the Eastern District of Texas. Recognized as a Rising Star in patent and intellectual property by Law360, Managing IP, and Benchmark Litigation.
• Serena Wong (Associate)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Litigation associate with experience representing healthcare companies and defending investors in commercial contract disputes; prior to law school, worked as a product manager at Microsoft for search advertising algorithms. Her involvement in patent litigation for Supercell is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but as an associate in the firm, it is possible she supported the team.
• Michael J. Sacksteder (Lead Counsel / Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, California. (Note: While some O'Melveny attorneys are listed, Fenwick & West is explicitly mentioned for Supercell in a related appeal, and a trial schedule also lists Sacksteder for Supercell.)
  • Experience: Represents Supercell in patent matters, as seen in the Federal Circuit appeal for a related PTAB proceeding. (General firm experience would be in intellectual property and technology litigation).

Local Counsel:

• T. John Ward, Jr. (Of Counsel / Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Former United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over a heavy intellectual property docket; now focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, as well as mediation and arbitration.
• Theodore W. Chandler (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: ChandlerPC (previously Baker Botts, Sidley Austin LLP). His current firm is ChandlerPC, but he was associated with Sidley Austin LLP (Los Angeles, CA) and Baker Botts in prior listings for IP litigation.
  • Experience: Has 20 years of experience in IP litigation, including patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation, often involving electronics, software, and medical devices. Registered to practice before the Patent Office and handles IPR proceedings parallel to litigation.

To summarize, the core team appears to be from O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fenwick & West LLP for lead roles, supported by local counsel.

Refined List of Counsel for Supercell Oy:

• Darin W. Snyder
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Highly experienced lead trial counsel in patent, trade secrets, and technology disputes with a strong record of victories at trial and on appeal for major technology companies.
• Michael J. Berta
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Experienced in intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret litigation across diverse technologies, with trial experience in federal court and the ITC.
• Michael J. Sacksteder
  • Role: Lead Counsel / Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Represents Supercell in patent matters, including PTAB appeals. His firm, Fenwick & West, is well-known for its intellectual property and technology litigation practice.
• Mark Liang
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (office location generally in technology hubs like California)
  • Experience: Focuses on patent and technology litigation, with an electrical engineering background and extensive experience in all stages of patent cases, including trial in the Eastern District of Texas.
• T. John Ward, Jr.
  • Role: Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas
  • Experience: Former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas with extensive experience presiding over intellectual property cases; now practices in patent and complex commercial litigation.
• Theodore W. Chandler
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: ChandlerPC (previously Sidley Austin LLP / Baker Botts), Los Angeles, California (though often serving as local counsel in E.D. Tex.).
  • Experience: 20 years of experience in IP litigation, including patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret cases, and handles IPRs.

Note: While other attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers, like Connie P. Lee and Serena Wong, are mentioned in general firm profiles, their direct and prominent involvement as counsel of record for Supercell in this specific case with relevant patent litigation experience was not definitively established from the provided search snippets. The roles and firms listed above are those most strongly linked to representing Supercell in this or closely related patent litigation.