This comes on the heels of ongoing litigation between Activision and former Infinity Ward founders Jason West and Vince Zampella over the Call of Duty franchise. That legal battle has lawsuits heading in both directions with the showdown currently heading to court in California.
The issue is over Worlds Inc. US patents numbers 8,082,501, 7,493,558, 7,945,856 and 7,181,690 titled "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space" and has additional continuation claims in process before the U.S Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). These patents relate to computer architecture for three-dimensional graphical multi-user interactive virtual world systems. Such systems are used in Massive Multiplayer Online games (MMOs).
Thom Kidrin, Worlds Inc. CEO, explains why his company is suing Activision now and why this litigation could impact other major players in the video game space in this exclusive interview.
Why are you targeting Activision Blizzard first with this lawsuit?
We believe there is plentiful and strong evidence of infringement of our patents by Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al and that we have an excellent chance of success in this case.
Can you explain in laymen's terms what your patent covers?
Worlds Inc.’s patents cover load balancing between the user’s PC and the host server commonly known as a client/server architecture. These methods filter the number of visible avatars on the screen at one time when there are hundreds of thousands of users online simultaneously.
When Worlds’ initial patents were filed in 1995 the major constraints for multiplayer online gaming were bandwidth and PC processing power. Worlds developed methodology and techniques that allowed large numbers of users to log into the same virtual world from around the world concurrently without being locked out of the site due to reaching prefixed population limits.
In the late ‘90s users were limited to between 10 to 15 concurrent users per room and if you logged in a few minutes after your friends did, you could not play with them because the room had already reached its limit and been closed to additional users.
As the confluence of separate internet service providers (ISPs), such as Compserve, GE Net and Delphi, to name a few, evolved into the World Wide Web, the need for datastream management methods for avatars in a virtual world across different PC platforms accessing the web at varying internet speeds became a crucial problem to solve. Players wanted to play together even if they logged on at different times and expected a fluid user experience moving within graphically rich virtual environments. Worlds’ technology solved those problems.
What other game companies would be in violation of these patents?
Worlds has not completed its technical analysis of other companies’ potential infringement at this time.
What's your plan when it comes to these other companies?
When we have completed our analysis, we will take the guidance of legal counsel on our next steps.
How might your patents influence the game industry beyond Activision Blizzard?
In patent litigation matters such as this one, at this time it is not in our best interest to state the names of any other companies that may be infringing on our patents nor to discuss any potential future actions being contemplated related to other companies. We will be working closely with Susman Godfrey to determine any additional parties to pursue and what actions to take related to patent infringement.
A successful outcome of this litigation will reaffirm Worlds’ patents’ validity and our place as an early innovator in virtual worlds development. A win will provide the company with greater flexibility in its pursuit of acquiring additional IP that is synergistic with Worlds’ technology.
These games have been around for years. Why are you going to court now?
The timing for the lawsuit was based upon the additional continuation patents that Worlds has recently received over the prior art, as well as independent analysis. We were fortunate that Max L. Tribble, lead counsel for Susman Godfrey LLP who has a stellar record for patent infringement wins against large organizations, was eager to be lead counsel on this case on a contingency basis following Susman Godfrey’s review of the patents, our history as an operating company since 1994 and other details.
