As with all patents, what is covered is defined by the claims. Here is the first claim.

1. A game mechanic method for playing a game played by a plurality of players on a playing field, said game mechanic method comprising the steps of:

(a) at least one player obtaining a plurality of game components to form a playing hand of game components, each game component having a resource point value, and

each game component being either in an “in play” state wherein the game component is placed on the playing field or an “out of play” state wherein the game component is in a player's playing hand and not on the playing field;

(b) at least one player transitioning one of said obtained game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state;

(c) at least one player earning resource points according to said resource point value of said selected game component by transitioning said selected game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state; and

(d) accumulating resource points earned each time said step of earning resource points is performed.

To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim has steps a, b, c and d and you only implement a, b and d in principle you should avoid infringement of that claim. Thus, long complicated claims are generally narrower than short simple claims.

With software it gets trick since there have been legal cases which significantly impacted patentability. In particular, Alice Corp v. CLS Bank and Bilski v. Kappos. This patent predates both decisions. It is quite possible that post Alice, this patent would not have been granted.

However, I can't but note that at first glance a game of Gin Rummy would seem to be similar to what is covered in claim one. There are a plurality of players (two), there are game components (cards) having point value. components go from "in play" (in your hand) to "out of play" (discard pile). A player can transition a card from "out of play" (top card of discard pile) to "in play" (to their hand). In gin, each hand has a current point value and you accumulate points over various rounds.

I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether this patent would hold up in court. Perhaps one of the actual patent attorneys can comment on the current state of software patent prosecution. It is an issued patent and the process for invalidating a patent is, to my understanding, potentially complicated and expensive. In any case, the most prudent course of action is consult with an actual patent attorney who can review the design of your game with respect to this and other potential patents and provide a specific legal opinion on freedom-to-operate.

As with all patents, what is covered is defined by the claims. Here is the first claim.

1. A game mechanic method for playing a game played by a plurality of players on a playing field, said game mechanic method comprising the steps of:

(a) at least one player obtaining a plurality of game components to form a playing hand of game components, each game component having a resource point value, and

each game component being either in an “in play” state wherein the game component is placed on the playing field or an “out of play” state wherein the game component is in a player's playing hand and not on the playing field;

(b) at least one player transitioning one of said obtained game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state;

(c) at least one player earning resource points according to said resource point value of said selected game component by transitioning said selected game components from said “out of play” state to said “in play” state; and

(d) accumulating resource points earned each time said step of earning resource points is performed.

To infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of the claim. Thus if a claim has steps a, b, c and d and you only implement a, b and d in principle you should avoid infringement of that claim. Thus, long complicated claims are generally narrower than short simple claims.

With software it gets tricky since there have been legal cases which significantly impacted patentability. In particular, Alice Corp v. CLS Bank and Bilski v. Kappos. This patent predates both decisions. It is quite possible that post Alice, this patent would not have been granted.

However, I can't but note that at first glance a game of Gin Rummy would seem to be similar to what is covered in claim one. There are a plurality of players (two), there are game components (cards) having point value. components go from "in play" (in your hand) to "out of play" (discard pile). A player can transition a card from "out of play" (top card of discard pile) to "in play" (to their hand). In gin, each hand has a current point value and you accumulate points over various rounds.

I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether this patent would hold up in court. Perhaps one of the actual patent attorneys can comment on the current state of software patent prosecution. It is an issued patent and the process for invalidating a patent is, to my understanding, potentially complicated and expensive. In any case, the most prudent course of action is consult with an actual patent attorney who can review the design of your game with respect to this and other potential patents and provide a specific legal opinion on freedom-to-operate.