The big news last week was Activision suing Gibson for declaratory judgment after Gibson sent Activision a threatening letter claiming that the GH series infringed on one of Gibson’s patents. In layman’s terms, Activision is asking a court to declare Gibson’s patent invalid and/or that GH doesn’t infringe. The patent is here
. I pause to note the shoddy journalism that went on related to this suit; how are you supposed to analyze a patent lawsuit without knowing which patent is allegedly infringed? It took a week to find some minor blog that had gotten a hold of the complaint and listed the patent number.
The broadest claim is claim 13:
13. A system for simulating participation of a user playing a musical instrument in a pre-recorded musical performance having audio and video portions, the musical instrument producing instrument audio signals at an instrument audio output when the instrument is played, comprising:
a. a source playback device for playback of the audio and video portions of the pre-recorded musical performance through corresponding source audio and source video outputs;
b. a source audio control device for controlling one or more characteristics of the audio portion of the pre-recorded musical performance during playback, the source audio control means operably connected to the source audio output and to the instrument audio output and having a controlled audio output; and
c. the source audio control device is responsive to the instrument audio signals whereby at least one characteristic of the audio portion of the pre-recorded musical performance is controlled by playing of the musical instrument by the user.
Generally when drafting a patent, you don’t want to draft claims with really long preambles if you can help it, because they limit the claim more than you’d like. What’s going to kill Gibson here is the phrase, “playing a musical instrument…the musical instrument producing instrument audio signals…” Guitar Hero simply doesn’t infringe because even if you were to consider the GH controller a musical instrument, it doesn’t produce an audio signal (at least, no more than any electronic signal is an audio signal.) It’s very clear that the instrument has to produce audio signals; see part c: “the source audio control device is responsive to the instrument audio signals.”
Prediction for what’s going to happen:
1. The court will have a claim construction hearing.
2. The court will hold that the instrument has to produce audio signals, defined (for example) as signals which produce discernable sound when output to a speaker.
3. The court will grant summary judgment for Activision shortly thereafter.
If you haven’t had much experience with patent law, this is the only real infringement analysis that matters. It doesn’t matter whether the device looks like the pictures in the patent, or whether Activision intended to copy Gibson’s idea, or anything like that. All that matters for the purposes of patent infringement liability is whether the device Gibson is using matches every element of a claim in the patent. Because the Guitar Hero system doesn’t match every element of the claim, it doesn’t infringe, period.
Posted by tigerhawk310
Posted by tigerhawk310