In the previous article, we analyzed the core “Splatoon” patent (Patent No. 5980266) based on its claims.This article focuses on Patent No. 6283072, a divisional application of that patent. The main point of interest is that, while both patents cover the same “inking” invention, the claims in the divisional patent are drafted from a different perspective than those in the parent patent. By comparing the claims of the parent and divisional patents side by side, we can see exactly how Nintendo’s “divisional strategy” works in practice.
In this article, I will also break down the elements of Claim 1 by quoting the original text and compare the differences with the parent patent (No. 5980266).For practitioners in the field of software and game-related inventions, this article serves as a teaching tool on “how to comprehensively cover a single invention through divisional applications”; for business executives, it provides a concrete example of “the mechanism by which the same gameplay is protected by multiple overlapping patents.”
Table of Contents
First, let’s verify the basic information of the subject patent using primary sources (the original text on Google Patents). It is important to note that this patent is a divisional application of Patent No. 5980266.
| Title of the Invention | Information Processing System, Information Processing Program, Information Processing Apparatus, and Information Processing Method |
| Patentee (Applicant) | Nintendo Co., Ltd. |
| Division Application Date | July 25, 2016 |
| Original Application (Parent Application) | Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-100714 (= Patent No. 5980266 / Published as Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2015-216971). Original filing date: May 14, 2014. |
| Publication Number | JP 2016-221303 (JP2016221303A) |
| Registration Date | February 21, 2018 |
| Registration Number | Patent No. 6283072 (JP6283072B2) |
In the previous article, I had noted with reservation that the related patent sharing the same name as 5980266 “appears to be a divisional application.”According to the bibliographic information on Google Patents, it can be confirmed that Patent No. 6283072 is a divisional application with the original application being Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-100714 (i.e., the application for Patent No. 5980266). In other words, it is a genuine sister patent, carved out from the same “body” of the invention.
I will quote Claim 1, which defines the scope of protection, verbatim. I will analyze and compare it with the parent patent in a later chapter so that readers can compare the two.
Patent No. 6283072 Claims Claim 1 (Original Text)
“Operation input acceptance means for accepting a first operation input by a user to move the player character, and a second operation input by the user, different from the first operation input, to cause the player character to perform a drawing action; andinformation processing means for performing information processing based on the first and second operation inputs received by said operation input receiving means; wherein said information processing means, based on said first operation input, moves said player character within said virtual space, andand, based on the second operation input, causes the player character within the virtual space to perform a drawing action, thereby coloring the drawing area of the virtual space with the player character’s corresponding color and causing the player character to attack an enemy character assigned a corresponding color different from that of the player character; andan information processing system comprising: a victory/defeat determination means for determining victory or defeat based on the areas colored with the corresponding color of the enemy character and the areas colored with the corresponding color of the player character.”
Claim 1 can generally be broken down into the following elements A through D.
| Claim Elements | Corresponding Portion of Claim 1 (Abstract) |
|---|---|
| A (Acceptance of Separate Inputs) | Comprising operation input receiving means for receiving a first operation input to move the player character and a second operation input, different from the first, to perform a drawing operation. |
| B (Processing) | Comprises information processing means for performing information processing based on the first and second operation inputs. |
| C (Movement + Drawing + Attack) | The game progression means causes the player character to move in response to the first input, performs a drawing action in response to the second input to color the drawing area with the player’s corresponding color, and causes the player character to attack enemy characters with different corresponding colors. |
| D (Area-Based Victory/Defeat Determination) | It comprises a victory/defeat determination means that determines victory or defeat based on the area colored with the enemy’s corresponding color and the area colored with the player’s corresponding color. |
The sentence ends with “an information processing system comprising … and ….” The scope of the claims includes systems that comprise all of A through D; if even one of these elements is missing, the claims are generally not satisfied in terms of the literal wording.
Even though both involve the same “shading” invention, the claims in the parent and child patents emphasize different aspects. When placed side by side, it becomes clear that the division of the patent into a divisional application was intended to separate these different perspectives.
| Perspective | Patent No. 5980266 (Parent) | Patent No. 6283072 (Divisional) |
|---|---|---|
| Operational Input | Accepts “operational input” (no requirement to distinguish between input for movement and input for drawing) | Clearly defines “First Input” for movement and “Second Input” for drawing as separate inputs |
| Attacking Enemies | No explicit requirement | Require the ability to “attack” enemy characters |
| Determining Victory or Defeat | "Match determination" based on the rendering state | "Victory/Defeat Determination" based on colored areas (explicit comparison of area) |
| Differences in behavior within the player’s colored area | Requirement (change display/movement control based on whether the area is the player’s color or not) | No Specification (Developed from a Different Perspective = Related Patent 6543361) |
To summarize, while the parent patent 5980266 focuses on “determination based on drawing status + behavior control within the player’s colored area,” the divisional patent 6283072 is protected from a perspective centered on “separate inputs for movement and drawing + attacks on enemies + victory/defeat determination based on painted area”—a perspective geared toward combat andcontrol system—such as separate inputs for movement and drawing, attacks on enemies, and victory/defeat determination based on painted area. By covering the same user experience from different angles, they form a patent portfolio with few gaps—this is the true nature of the divisional strategy.
Practical Tip (Distinguishing Between Parent and Divisional Patents): When dealing with a product suspected of infringement, consider enforcing your rights by selecting the “claim that is easiest to prove satisfied” from among the multiple claims.If the opposing product “controls movement and inking with separate buttons,” Patent No. 6283072 could serve as the starting point for your claim; if “behavior changes on one’s own ink” is a prominent feature, Patent No. 5980266 (or 6543361) could serve as the starting point.Dividing the patent into divisional applications to separate these perspectives serves to increase such options.
A divisional application (Patent Law Article 44) is a procedure for separating a portion of an application containing two or more inventions into a new application. The key practical point lies in the retroactive effect of the filing date.Although the actual filing date of the (divisional) application for 6283072 is July 25, 2016, if the division is valid, it is deemed to have been filed on the date of the original application (May 14, 2014), and the original filing date can serve as the reference date for assessing novelty and non-obviousness.In other words, even if a divisional application is filed after the parent patent has been granted, it can still benefit from the “strong” filing date of the parent application.
Typical scenarios where divisional applications are used are as follows:
・Addressing violations of unity of invention: When it is pointed out that a single application contains multiple inventions, the application is divided into separate applications for each invention.
・Diversification of claims: Securing separate, independent claims based on different aspects disclosed in the parent application’s specification (such as separating the operation-related and battle-related aspects, as in this case).
・Flexible response to litigation and business needs: Formulating new claims tailored to the implementation of later-developed products, within the scope of the disclosure in the specification.
It is important to note the constraint that claims newly drafted in a divisional application must be limited to the scope disclosed in the original application’s initial specification and other documents (the addition of new matters is not permitted). This is precisely why anticipating future developments at the time of filing and thoroughly describing embodiments in the specification helps prepare “ammunition” for subsequent divisional applications.The breadth of the divisional applications in the Splatoon patent family serves as evidence of the thoroughness of the disclosure in the original application’s specification.
Patent No. 6283072 explicitly limits movement and drawing to “first input/second input (mutually distinct).”While this has the strength of firmly capturing the design philosophy behind the control scheme—namely, “painting with one hand while moving”—it also carries the risk that, as the limitations increase, the language may fail to cover implementations where “movement and drawing are performed simultaneously with a single input.”While adding limitations clarifies the scope of rights, it can also create “loopholes” for circumvention—being mindful of this trade-off is crucial in both claim drafting and circumvention design.
“Attacking enemy characters,” which was not present in the parent patent, has been added as Requirement C. As a result, the scope of protection now encompasses not only simply coloring to compete for area but also the competitive aspect where coloring and attacking are integrated.Conversely, this also means that games consisting solely of a “pure coloring competition” without any attack elements may fall outside the scope of this claim. Requirements can be understood as an act of both “defending” and “drawing boundaries.”
Note (A single claim is insufficient for avoidance): Even if the limitations of a single claim can be overcome, the invention may still infringe parent patent 5980266, claims in other categories (programs, devices, methods), or related patents (6543361, 6561155, etc.).Furthermore, since each claim emphasizes different aspects, FTO analysis requires mapping the entire patent family and divisional series and conducting a cross-sectional review of their respective claim elements. Additionally, under the doctrine of equivalents, a formal circumvention may be evaluated as substantive satisfaction.
For a single core invention, prepare multiple claims that shift the perspective—such as a “version focused on determination,” a “version focused on the control system,” and a “version focused on behavior control”—by utilizing divisional applications. This design philosophy can be applied not only to games but to software-related inventions in general.As a prerequisite, thoroughly documenting diverse embodiments and variations in the specification of the original application will determine the degree of flexibility available for future divisional applications.
Patent No. 6283072, filed as a divisional application of the parent patent No. 5980266, protects the gameplay of *Splatoon* from a perspective focused on combat and control systems, specifically: “separate inputs for movement and drawing(A) → Movement, Drawing, and Attacking (C) → Determining Victory or Defeat Based on Area Covered (D),” which secures the gameplay of “Splatoon” from a perspective focused on competitive play and controls.By shifting the emphasis from the parent patent, the strategy encompasses the same experience from multiple angles—this is an excellent example where the practical application of a divisional strategy can be clearly understood through a comparison of the claims in the parent and divisional patents.
Consult with Evorix Intellectual Property Law Firm
At Evorix Intellectual Property Law Firm (evorix.jp), we offer consultations on software and game-related inventions, including patent applications, claim drafting (including divisional applications), and FTO (freedom-to-operate) searches. Please feel free to contact us via the inquiry form to discuss how best to secure intellectual property rights for your company’s inventions, including the appropriate perspectives and strategies.
*This article is intended to provide general information only and does not guarantee conclusions regarding individual cases or the validity of patents or the existence of infringement. The cited claims and bibliographic information are based on publicly available information (patent gazettes and Google Patents) as of the time of writing.Please base your interpretation of the actual scope of protection on the entire specification and the application history.
Splatoon Patent Series (5-part series)