Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011 · Property

PropertyPatentInfringementObviousnessAnalogous ArtClaim Constructionmovableliteral infringement

Facts

Innovention owned the '242 patent, which claims a chess-like physical board game using lasers, mirrored and non-mirrored pieces, and movable non-mirrored key playing pieces. MGA sold Laser Battle, a physical laser board game in which players move or rotate pieces to direct a beam at an opposing Tower piece; the Towers can be physically placed in different board spaces and the rules also contemplate Advanced Game Play in which they need not remain in standard positions. For obviousness, MGA relied on two Laser Chess articles describing electronic chess-like laser strategy games with mirrored and non-mirrored pieces and movable king pieces, plus the Swift patent describing a physical laser strategy game with fixed scoring modules mounted to the game board. The district court found infringement and nonobviousness, holding the Laser Chess references non-analogous and treating the level of ordinary skill as that of a layperson.

Issue

Whether Laser Battle's Tower pieces satisfy the patent's requirement that key playing pieces be "movable," and whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were not obvious. More specifically, the appeal asked whether the district court properly treated the Laser Chess references as non-analogous art and properly used a layperson skill level in its obviousness analysis.

Rule

Literal infringement may be resolved on summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation in the properly construed claim is or is not present in the accused device. For § 103, a prior art reference is analogous if it is either from the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor; a reference is reasonably pertinent if, because of the matter with which it deals, it logically would have commended itself to the inventor's attention. Obviousness also requires a factual finding of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and using an inappropriately low skill level in finding nonobviousness is reversible error when it affects the ultimate conclusion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Logic owns a patent on a two-player tabletop beam game requiring "movable command pieces" with no reflective surfaces. In an accused game sold in Denver by Red Mesa Games, the command token is a separate plastic piece that players may place in any of several designated starting squares before play begins, but once the match starts the standard rules forbid moving it.

If the claim term "movable" has already been construed to mean "capable of movement as called for by the rules of the game or game strategy," which is the best result on the patent owner's motion for summary judgment of literal infringement?

Explanation. Summary judgment on literal infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could find a claim limitation missing from the accused product. Under the majority's reasoning, a construction of "movable" tied to rules or strategy can include the capability of being positioned in different spaces at the beginning of the game, not just movement during later turns. Because the command token is a separate piece and the rules permit different starting placements, no reasonable jury could find the movable limitation absent. (Derived from Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. (2011).)