US 9889373

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and check for any 2026 CAFC activity.

The initial searches returned unrelated matters. Let me run more targeted queries on the patent and any litigation.

Let me check for any PTAB/CIPR or Federal Circuit activity specifically on this patent.

US Patent 9,889,373 B1 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: The bibliographic and claim data below comes primarily from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-28), corroborated by the Unified Patents / D. Del. litigation records surfaced in my searches. Where live sources conflict with each other, I flag it rather than resolve it.

1. Bibliographic Data

Assignment chain (per the patent's legal-events record): inventors → Checkpoint Studios (recorded 2013-09-18) → CP Studios LLC (recorded 2014-01-21).

Note on entity identity: Litigation reporting states that the plaintiff now suing is "CP Studios, LLC" (with a comma), a Utah entity formed in November 2024, and that no transfer of the asserted patents from the Delaware "CP Studios LLC" (no comma) appears in publicly available USPTO records — yet the Utah entity pleads ownership (Mondaq, Feb 16, 2026; CourtListener complaint). Treat the exact assignee-of-record as uncertain on this point.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A multilayer framework and architecture with variable video or digital gaming capabilities provides multiple levels of play, permitting players to engage in different ways. The different levels of play options include 1) a peer-to-peer competitive challenge level for 'core' players, 2) a 'follower' play option for players with restricted capabilities and access to portions of a game; and a 3) 'bystander' play option that permits non-players in a network to either observe or play from a reactive perspective."

3. Independent Claims — Plain Language

The patent has 14 claims, with two independent claims: claim 1 (method) and claim 8 (system). Dependent claims 2–7 and 9–14 are parallel mirror-image sets.

Claim 1 — computer-implemented method

Four steps performed by/using the server:

1. Provide a video gaming environment hosted on a server.
2. Provide access to that environment, using the server, to multiple user devices belonging to multiple users.
3. Designate a status level (using the server) for each user, drawn from a set of status levels, where each level gives a different capability within the environment. The set includes exactly these three:
   • First (leader/core): full access and play.
   • Second (follower/casual): restricted access and play.
   • Third (bystander/spectator): reactive access and play.
4. The reactive-access definition is the narrowing hook: a keyword response commented by a third-status user on a social network post of a first- or second-status user affects elements of gameplay in the environment.

Key scope point: the third status level is not merely "watch" — it requires a keyword comment placed on another user's social-network post, and that comment must affect gameplay elements.

Claim 8 — system

A processor + memory system where the memory instructions cause the processor to perform the same four operations as claim 1 (provide hosted environment; provide multi-device access; designate one of a plurality of status levels, including the full/restricted/reactive triad; and the same keyword-on-social-network-post → gameplay-effect limitation). It is essentially claim 1 recast in apparatus form, and rises or falls with the same limitations.

Dependent-claim coverage (non-limiting)

Both families add: access via personal computer, laptop, mobile device, gaming console or tablet (2, 9); hosting on/with a social network server (3, 10); third-party server (4, 11); a cloud of distributed servers (5, 12); a cross-platform server (6, 13); and concurrent multi-user play (7, 14).

4. Litigation & Post-Grant Activity (as of the search cutoff)

District court (D. Del.) — the "Family has litigation" entries and my independent search agree:

• 1:25-cv-01542 — CP Studios, LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., filed 2025-12-19, Judge Maryellen Noreika. Asserts US 9,604,132; 9,889,373; 10,632,388; 11,731,054 (CourtListener).
• 1:26-cv-00571 — same parties, also reporting the same four patents (Google Patents litigation link; docket mirror).

Prior-art activity: On 2026-03-20, Unified Patents published prior-art charts against five CP Studios patents, including U.S. 9,889,373, in connection with the Amazon/Twitch campaign (Unified Patents). These are prior-art identifications, not IPR petitions.

5. Explicit Uncertainty / Do-Not-Conflate Flags

1. No CAFC 2026 docket for '373 was found. I searched for Federal Circuit 2026 activity tied to 9,889,373 and found none. My searches also surfaced an unrelated April 23, 2026 nonprecedential CAFC opinion, No. 24-1893 (cafc.uscourts.gov PDF), which discusses a different "'988 patent" (Network-1 v. Google, Content ID/LSH). That is not US 9,889,373 — do not conflate them. Absence of a CAFC hit in web search is not affirmative proof that no appeal exists; a PACER/CAFC docket check would be needed to confirm.
2. No IPR/PGR on '373 was found in my searches; PTAB results returned were unrelated matters (e.g., a 2026 Microsoft IPR petition). Again, not proof of absence.
3. Date conflict in my source set: your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, whereas the search results show 1:26-cv-00571 filed May 18, 2026, with docket entries into July 2026 (and the environment date is 2026-09-28). I am reporting the docket data literally as retrieved rather than silently reconciling it.
4. Priority-date discrepancy across documents: the '373 record and complaint say provisional 61/643,352 was filed 2012-05-07, but the same complaint describes the '132 patent's priority to 61/643,352 as filed May 12, 2012. The '373's own priority date (2012-05-07) is what Google Patents lists; the May 12 reference appears to be an error in the pleading, but I flag it.
5. Assignee name variants ("CP Studios Inc.", "CP Studios LLC", "CP Studios, LLC") appear across the record; I have preserved each spelling as it appears rather than normalizing.

6. Bottom Line

US 9,889,373 B1 is a Feb 13, 2018 patent, filed May 7, 2013 by Wiklem and Cowan, assigned to the CP Studios entity, claiming priority to a May 7, 2012 provisional. Its two independent claims (method claim 1, system claim 8) are narrowly tied to a three-tier player-status architecture where the third tier's reactive capability is defined by keyword comments on another player's social-network post affecting in-game elements. It is currently being asserted (alongside '132, '388 and '054) against Twitch Interactive in the District of Delaware, and is the subject of a March 2026 Unified Patents prior-art chart. I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket and no PTAB proceeding specific to this number.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9889373 using the sources specified.

Let me search the litigation portals and specific case numbers referenced for this patent.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and check for other defendants, including a possible Amazon case.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,889,373 ("the '373 Patent")

Patent: U.S. 9,889,373 B1 — "Multilayer Framework and Architecture with Variable Video Gaming Capabilities"
Assignee/Patent Owner: CP Studios, LLC (Utah-based; an NPE per Unified Patents)
Inventors: Brian Joseph Wiklem; Carrie Ann Cowan

I found litigation involving this patent. Below is what the sources show, with citations. I have interpreted all patent numbers and case numbers literally and have not auto-corrected anything.

1. CP Studios, LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc. — D. Del. 1:25-cv-01542

Key allegations (from the complaint):

• The '373 Patent is described as issued to inventors Wiklem and Cowan on February 13, 2018, assigned to CP Studios, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional 61/643,352 (filed 2012-05-07).
• CP Studios pleads willful infringement, alleging it sent Twitch a notice letter in November 2018 regarding the '132 and '373 patents — i.e., pre-suit knowledge.
• The accused products include Twitch.tv, the Twitch mobile app, Twitch Studio, Twitch Bits, Twitch Turbo, and associated servers/subscriptions.
• Core theory: Twitch features that let viewers interact with and affect gameplay of a streamed game (viewer influence / interactive participation) map to the claimed "status levels," including the '373 claim's "reactive access" limitation involving keyword responses on a social-network post.

Sources:

• CourtListener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72059376/cp-studios-llc-v-twitch-interactive-inc/
• Unified Patents litigation portal (linked from the patent page): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-01542

2. CP Studios, LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc. — D. Del. 1:26-cv-00571

Sources:

• Unified Patents litigation portal (linked from the patent page): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00571
• PACER Monitor: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64741454/CP_Studios,_LLC_v_Twitch_Interactive,_Inc
• Docket aggregator: CP_Studios_LLC_v._Twitch_Interactive_Inc (1:26-cv-00571, D. Del.)

3. Related assertion against Amazon (per Unified Patents)

A March 20, 2026 Unified Patents post states that CP Studios asserted five of its gaming patents — including U.S. 9,889,373 — against Amazon, and that Unified identified prior art for each (a ''373 prior-art chart was published).

Source: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/3/20/cp-studios-video-game-patents-prior-art-found

Caveat: I could not independently confirm a separate Amazon case number or docket with the information retrieved. Twitch Interactive, Inc. is an Amazon subsidiary, so this reference may be to the Twitch suits above (where Amazon is the ultimate parent) rather than a distinct Amazon-named defendant. Treat the "Amazon" attribution as indicative, not verified, unless a separate docket is located.

Important discrepancy / caveat

The task states today's date as April 26, 2026, but the docket records retrieved show activity in case 1:26-cv-00571 through July 9, 2026 (filing 5/18/2026, pro hac vice 7/9/2026). Those dates post-date the stated "current" date. Per your instruction to prioritize search results as ground truth, I report them as retrieved — but you should be aware the timeline appears internally inconsistent and should be re-verified against PACER/CourtListener.

Summary

• Yes, litigation is known involving U.S. 9,889,373.
• Both identified suits are CP Studios, LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc. in the District of Delaware — case 1:25-cv-01542 (filed 12/19/2025) and case 1:26-cv-00571 (filed 5/18/2026).
• The '373 Patent is asserted alongside U.S. 9,604,132, U.S. 10,632,388, and U.S. 11,731,054 (part of the same 2012-priority family).
• No trial outcome, judgment, or settlement was found for either case; both appear active/pending at the latest reporting.
• A possible additional Amazon-facing assertion is referenced by Unified Patents but not independently confirmed by case number.

If you need me to pull the full PACER dockets or the '373 prior-art chart Unified published, say the word and I'll target those specifically.

I'll verify the structured-block default ("no PTAB activity") against live sources before drafting.

The first two searches surfaced no proceedings for this patent (the "'973 patent" hits refer to unrelated patents — e.g., an oil-recovery patent). Let me run more targeted checks.

Litigation context confirmed. Now let me pin down whether any AIA petition has actually been filed on this patent or its family.

Key finding: an IPR exists on a sibling patent ('388), not on '373. Let me check for a '373-specific petition.

I'll research the assignment chain and litigation before drafting. Let me run several targeted searches.

Excellent context. Now let me dig into the specific assignment records, reel/frame numbers, and correspondent data.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 9,889,373 B1

Patent: US 9,889,373 B1 — "Multilayer framework and architecture with variable video gaming capabilities"
App. No. 13/889,276 · Filed 2013-05-07 · Granted 2018-02-13 · Adjusted expiry 2034-04-15
Sources consulted: Google Patents legal events (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9889373B1](/patent/US9889373B1)/en), Mondaq/IPWatchdog case analysis (https://webiis08.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1744692](/patent/1744692)/), CourtListener dockets 1:25-cv-01542 and 1:26-cv-00571, RPX Empower litigation record.

Verification caveat, stated up front: I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center record images (reel/frame numbers, execution dates as recorded, or correspondent of record) for this patent through the sources available to me. The two recorded reassignments are documented in Google Patents' legal-events timeline, and the dates/parties below are drawn from that timeline plus contemporaneous reporting. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent attorney names are therefore reported as UNVERIFIED rather than reconstructed. Anyone relying on this for a standing or chain-of-title opinion must pull the recordation images directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (searchable by patent number) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Inventors

Unusual pattern flagged: The provisional names three inventors (Wiklem, Masterton, Cowan); the issued '373 patent names only two. A named inventor dropping out between provisional and non-provisional is a noted pattern, but here it is not the classic "all inventors departed within 12 months" precursor to a fire-sale — the reverse is true: both remaining inventors assigned the family to their own company (Sept 2013), consistent with a founder-side consolidation rather than an abandonment.

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: CP Studios LLC (Google Patents lists CP Studios LLC as both Original and Current Assignee).

Nuance that matters for the chain: CP Studios LLC was not the first owner. The patent family was first assigned to Checkpoint Studios Inc. (recording event 2013-09-18) and only then moved to CP Studios LLC, a Delaware entity formed 2013-11-08 — i.e., roughly seven weeks before the transfer was executed (December 2013) and about ten weeks before it was recorded (2014-01-21).

• Primary line of business: Checkpoint Studios was a small gaming/cloud-social-gaming startup; CP Studios LLC appears to be a patent-holding successor entity.
• Products embodying the claims: No evidence found of any shipped commercial product practicing the '373 claims by either Checkpoint Studios Inc. or CP Studios LLC. Wiklem's post-2015 employment history is entirely in video/CGI/VR production and an aviation streaming side project — no gaming product line.
• Current status: Checkpoint Studios Inc. appears inactive/defunct (no operating presence surfaced). CP Studios LLC (Delaware) remains the record owner. A separate, differently punctuated entity — CP Studios, LLC (with a comma), a Utah LLC formed November 2024 — is the entity actually filing suit and pleading ownership. Plaintiff's litigation counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle, WA) and Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE).

Assignment timeline

Two recorded reassignments are reflected in the public record. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent of record could not be retrieved — see caveat above.

• 2013-09-18 (recorded) — Reel UNVERIFIED / Frame UNVERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Carrie Ann Cowan; Brian Joseph Wiklem (individually)
  • Assignee: Checkpoint Studios Inc.
  • Correspondent: UNVERIFIED — not retrievable from the sources used.
  • Context: Founder-side consolidation — the inventors assign their own application to the startup they founded (Wiklem as CEO; Cowan as VP Marketing).

• 2014-01-21 (recorded) — Reel UNVERIFIED / Frame UNVERIFIED (executed December 2013 per contemporaneous reporting)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Checkpoint Studios Inc.
  • Assignee: CP Studios LLC (Delaware; formed 2013-11-08)
  • Correspondent: UNVERIFIED — not retrievable from the sources used.
  • Context: Internal succession/reorganization — assets moved from the operating gaming startup into a newly formed Delaware LLC weeks after that LLC's formation. Reported by IPWatchdog/Mondaq as "Checkpoint Studios moving the assets to CP Studios in December 2013."

• No recorded assignment appears in publicly available USPTO records transferring the asserted patents from CP Studios LLC (Delaware, no comma) to CP Studios, LLC (Utah, with comma) — the entity that filed suit in December 2025. That Utah LLC was formed November 2024, and pleads ownership of all right, title and interest in its complaints notwithstanding the absence of a recorded transfer. Twitch's first motion to dismiss (December 2025) was directed at exactly this corporate standing defect; CP Studios refiled on 2026-05-18 as 1:26-cv-00571.

If the Assignment Center returns no additional records beyond the two above, that itself is the finding: the record chain terminates in 2014 at the Delaware CP Studios LLC, while the litigating plaintiff is a different, later-formed Utah LLC absent from the chain of title.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9889373
    2012 : Provisional filed May 7
    2013 : Non-provisional filed May 7
         : Assigned to Checkpoint Studios
         : Delaware CP Studios LLC formed Nov 8
         : Assets moved to CP Studios
    2014 : Transfer recorded Jan 21
    2018 : Patent issued Feb 13
         : Demand letter to Twitch
    2024 : Utah CP Studios LLC formed
    2025 : Twitch suit filed Dec 19
    2026 : Twitch re-filed suit May 18
         : Twitch IPR filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present (structural facts), with sub-tells unverified.
The patent moved from an operating gaming startup (Checkpoint Studios Inc.) into CP Studios LLC, a Delaware LLC formed 2013-11-08 — approximately seven weeks before the December 2013 transfer and ten weeks before the 2014-01-21 recording. Purpose-formation immediately preceding a patent transfer is the core tell. However, I could not verify the classic corroborating tells (registered-agent service address, single-member status, licensing-only activity) because reel/frame and correspondent data were not retrievable. Note the name — "CP Studios," not "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" — does not follow the typical shell naming convention, so naming alone supports nothing here.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present (as to named lists).
Neither Checkpoint Studios Inc. nor CP Studios LLC / CP Studios, LLC appears on the enumerated lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff designation was surfaced for these entities. This is a single-target, small-portfolio asserter, not a mass filer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / insufficient data.
This is the signal I am least able to evaluate, because correspondent of record was not retrievable for either recorded assignment. I therefore make no finding. Note separately that litigation counsel of record (Folio Law Group PLLC; Farnan LLP) is not the same thing as assignment-record correspondent and should not be conflated.

4. Cascading transfers — Unclear.
The chain shows two consecutive transfers within roughly four months (2013-09-18 and December 2013/2014-01-21). But these ran from the inventors to their own operating company and then to a successor LLC — apparently a same-principal corporate succession, not an arm's-length cascade through unrelated chained LLCs sharing a correspondent. The tighter concern is not a cascade but a broken chain: the absence of any recorded transfer to the Utah plaintiff.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present as defined; adjacent concern present.
The Utah asserting entity was formed November 2024 and first sued 2025-12-19 — roughly 13 months, outside the 6-month window. No assignment executed near the suit date was found (indeed, none was found at all). The related red flag is the unrecorded ownership claim by a differently named entity rather than a timed pre-suit assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present / no evidence. No Chapter 7 or 11 filing by Checkpoint Studios Inc. or CP Studios LLC was surfaced. Checkpoint appears simply to have wound down quietly, not sold through a bankruptcy estate.

7. Privateering — Not present. The Checkpoint → CP Studios move appears to be same-principal succession, not an operating company funding an NPE to assert against competitors. No SEC filings or Patent Progress/EFF coverage ties an operating backer to this chain.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain terminates at an asserting entity that has sued Twitch Interactive (Amazon) twice plus drawn an IPR (IPR2026-00397, Twitch Interactive Inc. v. CP Studios LLC). No RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN participation.

Additional assertion-campaign facts bearing on the verdict (not among the eight signals, but material):

• Asserted patents span the whole family: US 9,604,132; 9,889,373; 10,632,388; 11,731,054 — issue dates March 2017 through August 2023.
• Continuing prosecution of a further family member filed May 2025 (US 2025/0281835 A1, 19/219,455) — active portfolio expansion aimed at the assertion campaign.
• Plaintiff contends its counsel sent Twitch a demand letter as early as November 2018 — a seven-year notice-to-suit gap on the '132 and '373 patents.
• Two complaints against the same defendant, the second after a standing-based dismissal motion.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain leaves an operating gaming startup (Checkpoint Studios Inc., where both named inventors worked) and lands in CP Studios LLC, a Delaware LLC formed 2013-11-08 — weeks before the December 2013 transfer recorded 2014-01-21 — with no evidence of any product embodying the '373 claims ever shipping from either entity. The patents were then asserted only against Twitch/Amazon in December 2025 and again in May 2026, while a differently named and later-formed Utah CP Studios, LLC (November 2024) pleads ownership despite no recorded assignment to it appearing in USPTO records — the very standing defect that drew the first motion to dismiss. That is a strong shell/succession signal plus a strong title-irregularity signal, but I cannot verify the corroborating shell tells (registered-agent address, licensing-only status) or the repeat-correspondent signal, because reel/frame and correspondent data were not retrievable — hence moderate rather than high confidence. If the Assignment Center images show a single recurring correspondent across both recordings, or confirm no products and a registered-agent address for either CP Studios entity, this should be upgraded to NPE — high confidence.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent-number search) · mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html · Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9889373B1/en

I'll ground this analysis with searches on the specific patent and its cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,889,373 B1

Analyst note on identifiers: I interpreted the number literally as 9,889,373. The search returned the corresponding patent (US 9,889,373 B1); no near-number substitutes were used.

1. Patent Under Analysis (verified)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9889373B1](/patent/US9889373B1)/en and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1e/47/82/72a37f794d6135/US9889373.pdf

Claim 1 limitation breakdown (the anticipation target)

• (a) providing a video gaming environment hosted on a server;
• (b) providing access, using the server, to the environment by a plurality of user devices/users;
• (c) designating a status level from a plurality of status levels to each user, each level providing a different capability, including:
  • (c1) first level = full access and play;
  • (c2) second level = restricted access and play;
  • (c3) third level = reactive access and play, "the reactive access specifying that a keyword response commented by a user having the third player status level on a social network post of a user having the first or second status level affects elements of gameplay."

Claim 8 recites the identical substance in system form (processor + memory instructions). Dependent claims 2/9 (device types), 3/10 (social-network hosting), 4/11 (third-party server), 5/12 (cloud), 6/13 (cross-platform server), 7/14 (concurrent play).

Key gate: element (c3) — the specific coupling of a keyword reply posted to a social network post to in-game effect — is the narrow point on which virtually all § 102 invalidity turns. No reference I located discloses that coupling verbatim.

Statutory framework. Because the application claims benefit of a provisional filed 2012-05-07 (before 16 March 2013), the pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) framework most likely governs; if the AIA transition rule applies instead, § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) applies with the same practical result given that every cited reference predates 2012-05-07. My analysis applies either way.

Scope caveat. The provided patent text lists "Citations (31),"; the extract I was given enumerates 29 entries and truncates at US 2013/0196732 A1 (Namco Bandai Games). Two citations (and any foreign/NPL references) are therefore not visible to me; I flag this rather than guess. I independently verified only the references noted with URLs below; the remainder are reproduced from the patent's own front-page citation list.

2. Complete Cited-Reference Inventory (as listed on the patent)

Note: the three "Cited By" items (King.com US 11,498,001; VSN Vision US 2023/0039323; EA US 2024/0325930) all post-date the 2013 filing and therefore are not prior art; they are cited only for prosecution/family context.

3. Deep Dive — Strongest § 102 Candidates

3.1 US 7,955,175 B1 — Holloway et al., "Role based game play on a social network"

Face It Applications LLC; filed 2010-04-20; granted 2011-06-07. § 102(e) art (filed before 2013-05-07).

• Disclosure: receives user inputs over a network; creates a group of two or more characters for a single user; associates a character with a friend user on the social network; the single user controls all characters' actions so play continues when friends are offline; social-networking platform (Facebook/MySpace) hosts the application.
• Potential § 102 mapping: supplies element (b) and the "social network" flavour of claims 3/10, and arguably a species of differentiated roles. It does not disclose server-designated per-user access tiers of full/restricted/reactive capability, and contains no keyword-on-post-to-gameplay mechanism. Anticipation: no. Would be cited for § 103 motivation regarding role differentiation on a social network.
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7955175B1](/patent/US7955175B1)/en ; https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=[7955175B1](/patent/7955175B1)

3.2 US 2003/0038805 A1 (US 6,999,083 B2) — Wong et al., "System and method to provide a spectator experience for networked gaming"

Microsoft; filed 2001-08-22; published 2003-02-27; granted 2006-02-14. § 102(b)/(e) art.

• Disclosure: a spectator engine aggregates game data with "non-participant initiated interactive information… generated between a non-participant and one of a participant and a disparate non-participant"; spectator feedback can be fed back to the game server and used "to implement spectator effects within the occurrence of the game," so that participants perceive the audience and spectator input can modify game elements. Spectators also get a distinct, restricted interface (camera/viewing controls) vs. participants.
• Potential § 102 mapping: this is the closest single reference to element (c3) — a distinct non-participant tier whose interaction affects the running game — plus supporting art for (c1)/(c2). Its claims 1, 15, 22, 31, 36, 45–47 are drafted around this. Critically, however, the "interactive information" is not a keyword response commented on a social network post; it is intra-spectator/spectator-to-participant feedback via a messaging service. Anticipation: no — the social-post-keyword limitation is absent. Strong § 103 candidate.
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030038805 ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6,999,083](/patent/6999083)

3.3 US 2007/0087797 A1 — Van Luchene, "Video Game Environment that Tracks Help and Advice Provided to Other Player Characters"

Filed 2006-05-30; published 2007-04-19; priority 2005-10-14 (granted as US 7,572,187). § 102(b)/(e) art.

• Disclosure: game assigns/qualifies expert vs. novice characters; help/advice flows between characters; benefit to helper, deficit to helpee; characters can vote on attributes of another character (positively or negatively), directly altering another player's character; a ghost/shadow mode lets one player observe or temporarily take over another's character.
• Potential § 102 mapping: relevant to a second ("restricted") tier (novice) whose participation is constrained, and to a third tier that influences another player's gameplay — structurally analogous to (c2)/(c3). No social-network post, no keyword comment, no server-designated three-tier status scheme. Anticipation: no. Good § 103 art for "influencing another player's game state."
• Continuation: US 2007/0087799 A1 (filed 2006-12-14).
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070087797 ; https://www.patentarcade.com/video-game-patent/US7572187/…

3.4 US 2013/0097517 A1 — Reiss, "Permission Control for Applications"

Filed 2011-10-18; published 2013-04-18. § 102(a)/(e) art (filed pre-critical date but published 2013 — qualifies as § 102(e) art as of its filing date; if AIA applies, § 102(a)(2)).

• Disclosure: graded permission levels governing what different users may do inside an application/platform, i.e. capability differentiation by user class.
• Potential § 102 mapping: supplies the generic "different capability per user class" idea underlying (c); 2013 publication date makes it marginal as printed publication but valid as § 102(e) art from its 2011 filing. Anticipation: no.

3.5 US 2013/0035164 A1 — Osvald, "Automated Apparent Responses in Massively Multiplayer Online Games"

Filed 2011-08-02; published 2013-02-07. § 102(e) art.

• Relevant to automated/mediated player-like participation affecting game state; no social-post keyword mechanism. Anticipation: no.

3.6 US 2010/0216553 A1 — Chudley, "Social Network System and Method For Use With and Integration into a Video Game"

Filed 2009-02-20; published 2010-08-26. § 102(b)/(e) art.

• Direct support for claims 3 and 10 (hosting/integration with a social network server); no three-tier status system. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

4. Bottom-Line Assessment

1. No cited reference appears to anticipate claim 1 or claim 8 under § 102. The limitation that defeats anticipation is the conjunctive element (c3): a keyword response commented on a social network post of a first/second-tier player that affects elements of gameplay.

   • Wong (spectator interaction → game effects) lacks the social-network post/keyword vector.
   • Holloway and Chudley supply the social network vector but lack tiered server-designated access and the keyword-to-gameplay link.
   • Van Luchene supplies influence over another player's game state but via help-contracts/voting, not social posts.

2. Strongest § 103 combination for claim 1 would likely be Wong (US 6,999,083 / US 2003/0038805) as primary (three participation classes with a non-participant class whose input modifies the game), in view of Chudley (US 2010/0216553) or Holloway (US 7,955,175) for the social-network posting substrate, and optionally Van Luchene (US 2007/0087797) for "influence another player's play." Claims 7/14 (concurrent play) find support in Zynga US 8,287,341; claims 2/9 (device list) in Sony US 2004/0266529.

3. Dependent claims are the more exposed ones. Claims 2–7 and 9–14 recite only conventional hosting/device/concurrency features (PC/laptop/mobile/console/tablet; social-network, third-party, cloud, cross-platform hosting; concurrent play) — all well represented across the cited art (e.g., US 2004/0266529, US 2010/0216553, US 8,287,341, US 2009/0307226). A validity posture resting solely on claim 1 would be materially stronger than one relying on the dependent claims.

4. Noise / non-relevant citation. US 8,200,020 B1 (Geiss, "Robust image alignment using block sums") is cited by the examiner but is image-processing art with no discernible bearing on any claim — I could not identify any claim it could anticipate.

5. Completeness limitation. The patent's front page reports 31 citations; the extract available to me enumerates 29 and truncates mid-entry at US 2013/0196732 A1. A complete § 102 pass requires obtaining the two omitted entries (and confirming whether any foreign/NPL citations exist) directly from USPTO PatentCenter for application 13/889,276. I have not fabricated entries to fill that gap.

Primary URLs used

• US 9,889,373 B1 (authoritative text + citation list): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9889373/en ; PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1e/47/82/72a37f794d6135/US9889373.pdf
• US 7,955,175 B1: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7955175B1/en · https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=7955175B1&KC=B1&FT=D
• US 2003/0038805 A1 & US 6,999,083 B2: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030038805 · https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6,999,083
• US 2007/0087797 A1 (and US 7,572,187): https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070087797 · https://www.patentarcade.com/video-game-patent/US7572187/video-game-environment-that-tracks-help-and-advice-provided-to-other-player-characters
• Litigation dockets (context only): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-01542 ; …/1%3A26-cv-00571

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me pull details on the most relevant ones.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,889,373 B1

Patent: Multilayer framework and architecture with variable video gaming capabilities
Appl. No.: US13/889,276 · Filed: 2013-05-07 · Priority: 2012-05-07 (Prov. 61/643,352) · Granted: 2018-02-13
Inventors: Brian Joseph Wiklem; Carrie Ann Cowan · Assignee: CP Studios LLC
Live status (per page): Active; expires 2034-04-15 · Litigation flagged: Delaware D. Ct. cases 1:25-cv-01542 and 1:26-cv-00571

Scope note on sources. Everything below is grounded in (a) the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt and (b) the 31 references in the "Citations" (prior-art) section of that page. I verified the content of four of them by search (US7955175B1, US20030038805A1, US20100216553A1, US20070087797A1, US20130103447A1, US8366546B1-adjacent material). For the remainder I have only the bibliographic data on the page (title, priority date, publication date, assignee); I flag where I am inferring from title/class alone rather than from text. I have not reviewed the full text of every listing, and I say so explicitly where it matters.

1. Threshold legal framework

Because the application was filed 2013-05-07 but claims benefit of a provisional filed 2012-05-07, and the specification appears to support the issued claims as of the provisional, the claims most likely retain an effective filing date before 16 March 2013. If so, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs (AIA § 3(n)(1)); the result is materially the same under AIA § 103 because no reference in the combination needs to be treated as "prior art" under a first-inventor-to-file-only theory. See also the page's own designation of the "Prior art date" as 2012-05-07.

Governing standard: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (motivation may come from the prior art, the problem to be solved, or common sense; a finite number of predictable solutions supports obviousness; "obvious to try" applies where the prior art gives a direction and there is a reasonable expectation of success).

PHOSITA is a software engineer with ~2–3 years of networked/social game development experience as of May 2012, familiar with client-server game architectures, social-graph APIs (friend graphs, feeds, wall posts, comments), and tiered permission/role models in online games.

Status of the "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" entries. These post-date the 2012-05-07 priority date and are not prior art (e.g., US11420123B2, "Helper mode in spectated video games," King.Com's US11498001B2, IGT's streaming-wagering family). They are relevant only as evidence of how the field later evolved and as claim-construction context — not as § 103 art.

2. The claim at issue

Claim 1 is the only independent claim (claims 8 is its system twin; 2–7 and 9–14 are dependent). Decomposed:

The page's own "Prior art keywords" set — video gaming, gaming environment, play, user, access — confirms that the examiner treated the tiered-access concept, not the social-comment mechanism, as the central subject matter. Limitation 1.4d is the only element with any meaningful chance of surviving a well-constructed combination, because "keyword response commented … on a social network post" imports a specific input channel and a specific data-flow path.

3. The prior art relied upon

I did not verify the full text of several listed references (e.g., US20110201414A1 WMS Gaming "Controlling and presenting online wagering games"; US20130035164A1 Osvald; US20130196732A1 Namco — title truncated on the page; US20130006709A1 3G Studios). Their value is inferential from title/assignee only; a formal IPR petition would require full-text review, especially of US20130196732A1 whose filing date I could not confirm.

4. Element-by-element obviousness chart (claim 1 and claim 8)

Bottom line as to claim 1 / claim 8: the three-reference combination Chudley + Wong + Van Luchene, supplemented by US20130103447A1 for the comment-parsing step, renders claim 1 obvious. A leaner two-reference case is also available: Chudley + US20130103447A1, since Chudley supplies the server-hosted, multi-user, social-network-integrated game with post-driven in-game effects, and US20130103447A1 supplies the comment-to-system-action mechanism; Van Luchene then supplies the graded-status detail for the intermediate tier.

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR showing)

A petition or invalidity contention should articulate the motivation with the references' own words, not with hindsight:

1. Same field, same problem. All four references address networked gaming plus a social/community layer, and each identifies the same underlying problem: keeping players engaged in a game that has "no ultimate 'winner'" (Van Luchene ¶[0002]) and monetizing free/low-commitment participation.
2. Express motivation in Wong to add a spectator tier. Wong states the spectator experience "requires little initial commitment," is "a great way to get gently introduce spectators into the often-complex games," and "supporting the spectator experience may help drive sales of the games themselves, as casual viewers take the next step to become players." That is an explicit, art-recognized reason to create a third tier below full and partial play — i.e., the claimed 1.4c tier.
3. Express motivation in Chudley to route social activity back into the game. Chudley ¶[0019]/[0063] describes broadcasting in-game activity into the social feed which "may lead to interaction outside the game (chat, challenges, member page postings, public messages…) which in turn may lead to new activity in the game." Chudley therefore supplies both the direction of the data flow and the reason for it.
4. Predictable, finite solution space. Tiered roles/permissions (Van Luchene's novice/expert; US7955175B1's role-based characters; Chudley's group status) were a small set of known alternatives. Choosing how much access a non-player gets is a matter of degree, and KSR holds that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Both Chudley and Wong had already implemented the plumbing (social feed objects; spectator-to-game-server feedback); adding keyword parsing to route a comment into the game-state update required only conventional text matching, which was routine in 2012.
6. Commercial/marketing driver. Chudley ¶[0047] and Wong's closing passages identify advertising, cross-promotion, and conversion of viewers to players as the payoff — supplying the "design incentive" prong of KSR.

6. Dependent claims

Claims 2–7 and 9–14 are, on this record, straightforward and materially weaker than claim 1:

• Claims 2 / 9 (device types: personal computer, laptop, mobile device, gaming console, tablet): Chudley ¶[0052] enumerates Xbox, PlayStation, Wii, PC, Apple, "mobile communications device, handheld device"; Wong enumerates "PCs, game consoles, workstations, handheld devices." Also supported by US20040266529A1 (Sony — remote execution of game content and presentation on a wireless portable device). Obvious.
• Claims 3 / 10 (hosted in association with a social network server): Chudley (social network module 30 on server 14); US7955175B1. Obvious.
• Claims 4 / 11 (third party server): Chudley (server 14 remote from game platform 12); Wong (separate game server and spectator server). Obvious.
• Claims 5 / 12 (cloud of distributed servers): Chudley ¶[0072] — server 14 "may include a plurality of different devices that are located remotely from each other that cooperate to provide the described functionality." That is a distributed-server disclosure; whether it rises to "cloud" as claimed is a claim-construction question, but the Architecture is taught. Obvious on Chudley alone, and more so on any distributed-gaming reference.
• Claims 6 / 13 (cross-platform server accommodating all user devices): Chudley is unusually strong here — ¶[0015] ("Users implementing different platforms may not be able to participate in the actual game with each other… However, the social network may provide a unitary forum") and ¶[0039]/[0093] (cross-platform social network, persistent profile across platforms/titles). Obvious.
• Claims 7 / 14 (concurrent play): Chudley ¶[0071] ("enable players to participate in the game by competing in the same races or other events simultaneously"); Wong (real-time spectator experience); US20080004117A1 (Microsoft, "Multi-Player Gaming"). Obvious.

Note the family relationships on the page: the same-day siblings US13/889,266 (US9604132B1), US13/889,274 (US10543422B1), US13/889,284 (US9597586B1), and the continuation US15/428,914 (US10632388B1) share the 2012-05-07 priority. Any of them asserting overlapping subject matter against the same accused products will face substantially the same prior-art landscape, so this analysis is not unique to the '373 patent.

7. Counterarguments a patent owner will raise (and how strong they are)

A. No reference expressly parses a keyword in a comment left on another player's post.
This is the strongest non-obviousness point. Chudley's "responses to such postings" affect a virtual member's disposition/behavior; Wong's spectators affect the game principally through presence/audience indications ("The game server 314 … can employ the feedback to create an indication of a spectator presence"); US20130103447A1 operates on task/feed comments but is not a game-state engine. A patent owner will argue that 1.4d requires three things no single reference teaches together: (i) the poster is a first- or second-status human user, (ii) the responder is a third-status user, and (iii) the response is a keyword that affects gameplay.
Assessment: This is a scope argument, not a teaching-away argument. It narrows the case but does not defeat it — the combination supplies each sub-element, and the claim does not require the keyword to be the only mechanism or that the effect be direct/instantaneous. However, a tribunal applying KSR's "predictable variation" doctrine should still find 1.4d obvious only if the petitioner can point to something in Chudley or US20130103447A1 that ties comment→game-state modification. US20130103447A1's "interaction component receiving social inputs … related to the task" and Chudley's "responses to such postings … may impact interaction within the game" do that jointly.

B. "Reactive access and play" is a term of degree.
There is no bright line between "restricted…play" (1.4b) and "reactive…play" (1.4c) in the specification; both are described qualitatively ("restricted or limited"; "viewing and capability to influence play with keyword responses"). Under broadest reasonable interpretation — the standard for IPR — 1.4b/1.4c read onto any gradation of partial participation, which makes the tiered references (Van Luchene, Chudley, Wong) squarely anticipatory-adjacent. Conversely, under Phillips, a district court could read the terms narrowly using the specification's "leader / follower / bystander" vocabulary, which would narrow the claims toward the litigation-narrowing direction its owner would prefer. A § 112 indefiniteness squeeze is also available.

C. Secondary considerations.
No evidence of secondary considerations appears on the patent page — no commercial-success, long-felt-need, failure-of-others, copying, or licensing data is presented. The only notable signal is the flagged litigation (Delaware 1:25-cv-01542 and 1:26-cv-00571). Litigation is not probative of non-obviousness; it is at most evidence that someone considers the claims valuable enough to license or to attack. If the owner asserts nexus-based secondary considerations later, they would need a nexus between the "keyword response … on a social network post" limitation and any alleged commercial success, which is a high bar given that the specification itself only describes the bystander keyword feature in a single sentence ("A user with 'bystander' status may influence the game by responding to wall posts or responding with a key word").

D. A reminder about the record. The specification's support for 1.4d is thin — one line in the FIG. 8 discussion and one line in the FIG. 9 discussion. Under KSR, thin, purely functional disclosure cuts against non-obviousness of the combination (the patent's asserted advance is an architectural arrangement, not a new mechanism), but it also creates a written-description vulnerability that a challenger can pair with the § 103 case.

8. Conclusion

• Claim 1 and claim 8 are, on this record, likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US20100216553A1 (Chudley) in view of US20030038805A1 (Wong) and US20070087797A1 (Van Luchene), further in view of US20130103447A1 (Microsoft) for the social-comment/keyword step. The motivation is express in the references themselves (engagement, conversion of spectators to players, cross-platform retention, advertising), and the solution is a predictable application of a known technique (parsing user comments on a feed) to a known structure (a spectator tier in a server-hosted, social-network-integrated game).
• Claims 2–7 and 9–14 are obvious over the same combination plus the device/platform/concurrency references identified in § 6, with claim 6/13 (cross-platform) being the weakest of the dependents because Chudley expressly discloses a cross-platform social network and unitary forum.
• The best defense for the patent owner is a narrow reading of limitation 1.4d that requires a keyword in a comment on another human player's social post to directly modify game state — a reading for which Chudley and US20130103447A1, taken alone, are imperfect. Whether that reading holds depends on claim construction, and the combination teaches each constituent step regardless.
• Caveat on completeness: this analysis relies on the citation list and on the reference texts I could verify. Before filing any § 103 challenge, the full texts of US20130196732A1 (Namco Bandai — title truncated on the source page), US20110201414A1 (WMS Gaming), US20130035164A1 (Osvald), and US20130006709A1 (3G Studios) should be reviewed, and the actual filing dates confirmed for each reference whose publication date post-dates 2012-05-07, to establish § 102(e) status.

Sources consulted: the full patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9889373](/patent/US9889373)/en; US7955175B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7955175B1/en); US20030038805A1 / US6999083 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030038805, https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6999083](/patent/6999083)); US20100216553A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100216553); US20070087797A1 / US7572187 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070087797, https://uspto.report/patent/app/20070087797); US20130103447A1 / WO2013062965A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013062965A1).