GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy

19-1864, 19-1960

Question(s) Presented

  1. “May a Panel of this Court disregard the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that the Petition did not present evidence or arguments that features recited by claims 2-4 and 9 were well-known, routine, or conventional, and, instead make its own finding of fact that the features were well-known, routine, or conventional, without applying the correct standard of review or burden of proof, without citing to evidentiary support or analysis in the record, and without deference to the  PTAB’s findings and analysis of the evidentiary record?”
  2. “Where an earlier Panel of this Court has previously found that a nearly identical idea to which claims 2-4 and 9 are directed is non-abstract, may a Panel of this Court nevertheless find the claims here directed to an abstract idea without addressing that earlier Panel’s decision, thereby increasing the unpredictability and uncertainty of the Alice test and stifling innovation?”

Posts About this Case