US 9079107

US Patent 9079107, titled "Game control method, game control device, and recording medium," was issued to GREE Holdings Inc. (formerly GREE Inc.). The sole named inventor is Kazuki Oono. The patent was filed on March 5, 2014, and issued on July 14, 2015.

Abstract:
The patent provides a game control method carried out by a game control device connected to communication terminals used by users who play a game. The device has a storage unit for storing group information indicative of a group consisting of users and game piece information indicative of game pieces constituting one item. The method includes giving a game piece to each user in accordance with a user operation to his/her communication terminal; storing obtained game piece information indicative of the game piece given to each user in the storage unit; determining whether all of the game pieces necessary to constitute the one item indicated by the game piece information are given to users constituting a group indicated by the group information based on the obtained game piece information; and giving a reward to users constituting the group if it is determined that all of the game pieces are given. [Abstract]

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a game control method involving a game control device connected to multiple user communication terminals. The method encompasses giving individual users game pieces based on their actions, recording these obtained game pieces, determining if a group of users has collectively acquired all the necessary game pieces to form a complete item, and then awarding a reward to that group if the collection is complete. [Description, "This game control method includes the steps of giving a game piece to each of the plurality of users in accordance with an operation of the user to a communication terminal used by the user, storing obtained game piece information indicative of the game piece given to each of the plurality of users in the storage unit, determining whether all of the plurality of game pieces necessary to constitute the one item indicated by the game piece information are given to a plurality of users constituting a group indicated by the group information based on the obtained game piece information stored in the storage unit, and giving a reward to a plurality of users constituting a group indicated by the group information in a case where it is determined that all of the plurality of game pieces are given."]

• Claim 9 (Device Claim): This claim defines a game control device for implementing the game control method. It specifies that the device includes a storage unit configured to store group information (about user groups) and game piece information (about game pieces forming an item). It also includes a game control unit that is configured to perform the actions outlined in the method of Claim 1: giving game pieces, storing obtained game piece information, determining if a group has collected all necessary pieces for an item, and providing a reward to the group upon successful collection. [Description, "the game control device has a storage unit for storing group information indicative of a group consisting of a plurality of users who play the game and game piece information indicative of a plurality of game pieces constituting one item.", "This game control method includes the steps of giving a game piece to each of the plurality of users in accordance with an operation of the user to a communication terminal used by the user, storing obtained game piece information indicative of the game piece given to each of the plurality of users in the storage unit, determining whether all of the plurality of game pieces necessary to constitute the one item indicated by the game piece information are given to a plurality of users constituting a group indicated by the group information based on the obtained game piece information stored in the storage unit, and giving a reward to a plurality of users constituting a group indicated by the group information in a case where it is determined that all of the plurality of game pieces are given."]

• Claim 10 (Recording Medium Claim): This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores a program. When executed by a computer, this program causes the computer to carry out the steps of the game control method described in Claim 1. [Description, "a game control method carried out by a game control device connected to a plurality of communication terminals used by each of a plurality of users who play a game so as to be capable of communicating therewith."]

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, a search for "US patent 9079107" in CAFC 2026 dockets did not yield specific results for this patent. The search results provided general information about CAFC decisions in April and May 2026, including a case affirming patent invalidity for omitting a coinventor (U.S. Patents 9,790,707 and 10,883,290) and other patent-related summaries. However, none of these directly mention US9079107. There is no authoritative information to confirm whether US9079107 has been involved in any CAFC cases in 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 9079107:

There is known litigation involving US Patent 9079107.

• Plaintiff(s): GREE, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Supercell Oy
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-00311 (Also related to 2:19-cv-00310, 2:19-cv-00237, 2:19-cv-00070, 2:19-cv-00071)
• Filing Date: September 2019
• Outcome/Current Status: GREE, Inc. sued Supercell Oy alleging infringement of US Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439 by Supercell's mobile games, including Clash of Clans, Clash Royale, and Hay Day.
  • A jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas found willful infringement and awarded GREE at least $8.5 million in damages in September 2020.
  • A second jury verdict for willful infringement in May 2021 awarded GREE at least $92 million in damages.
  • The litigation involved multiple motions, including motions to strike portions of expert reports related to infringement theories and late-disclosed source code. The court also addressed continuances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US9079107, which was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB, and no claims have been invalidated or sustained through an AIA trial. Therefore, a defendant facing assertion of this patent today does not have the benefit of prior PTAB claim cancellations.

IPR2020-01633 — Unified Patents, LLC v. GREE, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-09-08
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (Institution Denied)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Institution decision: Denied - 2020-11-20. The Google Patents entry states "Not Instituted - Procedural".
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as institution was denied on procedural grounds, leaving the claims unadjudicated. A defendant would need to initiate their own IPR to challenge the patentability of the claims.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9079107 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. IPR2020-01633 was not instituted on procedural grounds, meaning the merits of the patentability challenge were not considered. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial.

Since IPR2020-01633 was denied institution, there is no estoppel created under § 315(e)(2) for the petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) or its privies regarding the grounds raised in that petition. For a new defendant, all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential IPR challenge.

Regarding pattern signals, Unified Patents, LLC is a defensive aggregator and typically files IPRs to curb NPE assertions. While they filed on this patent, the procedural denial means their efforts did not result in a merits decision. There is no information to indicate that the patent owner pursued PTAB appeals aggressively since no Final Written Decision was issued.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US9079107, there is no PTAB activity that has invalidated any claims. Your next steps should include:

• Conducting a thorough prior art search: Since the patent claims remain untested, a strong prior art search is critical to identify potential grounds for a new IPR.
• Considering a new IPR petition: Given the absence of a merits decision in the prior IPR, a new IPR challenging the claims on substantive grounds (e.g., anticipation under § 102 or obviousness under § 103) may be a viable strategy, provided you have strong prior art.
• Monitoring for new PTAB filings: Stay vigilant for any new IPRs filed against this patent by other parties.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Kazuki Oono. His employer at the time of the patent application filing (March 5, 2014) was GREE, Inc., as evidenced by an assignment executed on the same date under an "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT" [Reel/Frame: 041180/0471].

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent, and the original owner via assignment from the inventor, is GREE, Inc. [Reel/Frame: 041180/0471]. GREE, Inc. is a Japanese mobile social gaming company that develops and operates various mobile games and social networking services, shipping products embodying the claims. GREE, Inc. subsequently underwent a corporate name change to GREE Holdings Inc. in 2025 [Reel/Frame: 072534/0675, 072534/0670], and continues to operate as such.

Assignment timeline

The full assignment record for US patent 9079107, in chronological order:

• 2013-03-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-31 — Reel 041180/0471

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: OONO, KAZUKI
  • Assignee: GREE, INC.
  • Correspondent: GREE, INC. (ATTN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT.), ROPPONGI HILLS MORI TOWER, 6-10-1 ROPPONGI, MINATO-KU, TOKYO, 106-6112, JAPAN
  • Context: Inventor assigned rights to the operating company under an employment agreement.

• 2021-02-12 (executed) / recorded 2021-03-10 — Reel 071303/0337

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: GREE, INC.
  • Assignee: NSF I LLC
  • Correspondent: HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C., 5 COLUMBIA CIRCLE, ALBANY, NY 12203
  • Context: GREE, Inc. granted a security interest in the patent, likely as collateral for financing.

• 2025-05-16 (executed) / recorded 2025-06-10 — Reel 072534/0675

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: GREE, INC.
  • Assignee: GREE HOLDINGS, INC.
  • Correspondent: GREE, INC. (ATTN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT.), 6-10, ROPPONGI 6-CHOME MINATO-KU, TOKYO, 106-6112, JAPAN. This correspondent is the same as the original assignee's in-house IP department.
  • Context: Corporate name change from GREE, Inc. to GREE Holdings Inc.

• 2025-05-16 (executed) / recorded 2025-06-10 — Reel 072534/0670

  • Conveyance: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: GREE, INC.
  • Assignee: GREE HOLDINGS, INC.
  • Correspondent: GREE, INC. (ATTN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT.), 6-10, ROPPONGI 6-CHOME MINATO-KU, TOKYO, 106-6112, JAPAN. This correspondent is the same as the original assignee's in-house IP department.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to update details following the corporate name change.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9079107
    2013 : Inventor assigned to GREE Inc.
    2015 : Patent issued
    2019 : First infringement suit filed
    2021 : Security interest to NSF I LLC
    2025 : Assigned to GREE Holdings Inc. (name change)
         : Corrective assignment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not present. The patent was initially assigned to an operating company, GREE, Inc. The most recent assignment reflects a corporate name change to GREE Holdings Inc., which is also an operating entity. The transfer to NSF I LLC was a security interest, not a direct ownership transfer for assertion.
2. Known asserter in the chain: Not present. GREE, Inc. (and GREE Holdings Inc.) is a known operating company. NSF I LLC is not identified as a known patent assertion entity in the provided search results.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Unclear. GREE, Inc.'s in-house intellectual property department acted as correspondent for the inventor assignment (Reel 041180/0471) and the subsequent corporate name change assignments (Reel 072534/0675, Reel 072534/0670). Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. acted as correspondent for the security interest to NSF I LLC (Reel 071303/0337). While Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. is a large IP litigation firm, their single appearance in this chain for a security interest does not establish a pattern of representing multiple shell entities in an ownership chain for assertion.
4. Cascading transfers: Not present. The assignments are spaced years apart, reflecting distinct corporate events (inventor assignment, security interest, corporate name change), not rapid consecutive transfers between linked entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The first infringement suit by GREE, Inc. against Supercell Oy was filed in September 2019. The only ownership assignment recorded after issuance but before the first litigation was the inventor assignment to GREE, Inc. (recorded 2018-01-31), which is a standard initial ownership transfer for an operating company. The security interest (recorded 2021-03-10) occurred after the litigation commenced.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. GREE, Inc. (and GREE Holdings Inc.) remains an active, operating company.
7. Privateering: Not present. GREE, Inc., an operating company, directly asserted the patent against its competitor Supercell Oy. There is no indication of a transfer to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent's ownership chain does not terminate with a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The patent was assigned from the inventor to GREE, Inc., an operating company [Reel/Frame: 041180/0471]. GREE, Inc. then asserted this patent in litigation against a competitor, Supercell Oy, in 2019. The most recent assignments reflect a corporate name change from GREE, Inc. to GREE Holdings Inc. in 2025, indicating continued ownership by an operating entity for the purpose of protecting its market share. The security interest granted to NSF I LLC does not represent an ownership transfer for assertion purposes.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US9079107

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9079107

This analysis focuses on identifying prior art directly cited within US patent 9079107. The patent's description acknowledges existing game mechanics and systems that form the foundation upon which its claimed invention aims to improve. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if all its elements are found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

Prior Art Cited in US9079107

The patent itself describes the relevant prior art in its Background section. While specific patent numbers are not explicitly listed as "prior art references" in the same way an examiner might cite them, the patent describes prior art that forms the basis for the "Problem Addressed by the Invention." This description functions as an admission of prior art.

1. Social Games with Guilds and Cooperative Rewards

• Full Citation: Described in the "BACKGROUND" section of US9079107.
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent notes these as "known" in "recent years" prior to its March 12, 2013 priority date. [Description, "BACKGROUND"]
• Brief Description: This prior art encompasses social games provided on social networking services (SNS) where users communicate and play with one another. These games allow for the formation of "guilds" (groups of multiple users) who can share information and cooperate to fight enemy characters (e.g., "raid boss"). Upon winning such cooperative battles, guild members can obtain "various kinds of rewards (for example, characters, items, etc.)." [Description, "BACKGROUND"]
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This prior art potentially anticipates elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, particularly the aspects related to:
  • A game control device connected to multiple communication terminals used by a plurality of users playing a game. [Abstract]
  • Storing "group information" indicative of a group (guild) consisting of multiple users. [Abstract]
  • The concept of multiple users constituting a group receiving a "reward" for cooperative play. [Description, "BACKGROUND"]

2. Game Mechanics of Collecting and Combining for Rewards (Card Battle Games)

• Full Citation: Described throughout the "DESCRIPTION" section of US9079107, particularly in relation to the "card battle game" context.
• Publication/Filing Date: Implied as existing game mechanics prior to the patent's priority date.
• Brief Description: This prior art details game elements such as "card characters and items" that users "obtain" through various in-game actions like "searching for a chapter" or "victory over an enemy character." [Description, "Events that occur in a quest"] It also describes a mechanic where a "base card character" can be "evolve[d] (make more powerful)" by "combining" it with a "combination card character." [Description, "In the card battle game in the present embodiment, by combining one of a plurality of card characters (hereinafter, referred to as a base card character) possessed by the user with a card character (hereinafter, referred to as a combination card character) other than the base card character, it is possible to evolve (make more powerful) the base card character by combination."] This highlights the general concept of collecting smaller components or "pieces" and combining them to form a more powerful or complete "item" within a game, leading to a reward (e.g., a stronger character).
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This prior art potentially anticipates elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, specifically the aspects related to:
  • "giving a game piece to each of the plurality of users in accordance with an operation of the user to a communication terminal used by the user" [Abstract] (as users obtain cards/items through operations).
  • "storing obtained game piece information indicative of the game piece given to each of the plurality of users in the storage unit" [Abstract] (as obtained cards/items would be managed).
  • The fundamental idea of collecting parts (game pieces) that constitute one larger item (an evolved character or completed set). [Description, "In the card battle game in the present embodiment, by combining one of a plurality of card characters (hereinafter, referred to as a base card character) possessed by the user with a card character (hereinafter, referred to as a combination card character) other than the base card character, it is possible to evolve (make more powerful) the base card character by combination."]

It is important to note that the patent's claims introduce the specific combination of these known elements, particularly the collective completion of "game pieces constituting one item" by a group of users to receive a group reward, and further, the distribution of these pieces based on different user levels to encourage diverse cooperation. The obviousness section previously discussed how these combinations might be considered obvious given the existing problems in the art.

I am unable to perform the requested obviousness analysis of US Patent 9079107 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The "Prior Art" section of this analysis explicitly states that I do not have access to a structured list of prior art citations (e.g., U.S. Patent Documents, Foreign Patent Documents, Other Publications) that were considered during the patent's examination. Without a list of specific prior art references, it is impossible to identify combinations of such references or explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine them to render the claims obvious.