U.S. Supreme Court Denies Worlds’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari as Solicitor General Urges SCOTUS to Clarify Patent Eligibility

Boston, MA, Oct. 05, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Worlds Inc. (OTCQB: WDDD) has been notified that the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) has denied its Petition for a writ of certiorari requesting that the SCOTUS review the March 10, 2022 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the adverse District Court decision from April 30, 2021. Those decisions ruled in favor of defendants Activision Blizzard Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc., and concluded that the patents asserted by Worlds were invalid as directed to abstract concepts. Worlds’ request to have the SCOTUS accept its case as a companion case to the American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holding petition for writ of certiorari and to clarify the test applied by courts when deciding questions of patent eligibility were also denied, as was American Axle’s request. However, there is a glimmer of hope on the patent front in that on October 4, one day after the Supreme Court rejected Worlds’ request, the U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recommended that the SCOTUS clarify how to determine whether or not an invention is worthy of patent protection.

As background: The patent arena has been in disarray since the SCOTUS’ 2014 decision in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International on what is an unpatentable idea versus a patentable one. The decision caused uncertainty for lower courts and patent examiners on how to apply the court’s tests regarding whether an invention is patentable.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, the Solicitor General’s Oct. 4 brief noted that The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was wrong in finding that a method of manufacturing driveshafts to reduce vibrations (the American Axle case) was too abstract to be eligible for a patent, citing hundreds of years of patent law that patented similar inventions. The Solicitor General further stated that a step in the Supreme Court’s test for eligibility has created uncertainty and urged the court to review the case.

“We are disappointed in the ruling relating to Worlds, as we addressed constitutional issues of patent law and the ambiguity of the SCOTUS ruling on the Alice case,” stated Thom Kidrin, CEO of Worlds Inc. “Unfortunately, the courts recently have shown they do not understand or value the innovations that often serve as the foundation for subsequent developments and are willing to strip patents granted by the USPTO experts from patent holders who incurred great expense and time to maintain them without even granting a hearing on appeal. We appreciate the extraordinary legal expertise of Susman & Godfrey and Davidson & Berquist during this 10-year legal journey.”

Kidrin added, “We are encouraged by the Solicitor General’s request that SCOTUS review the American Axle case and hopefully provide clarity on patent eligibility that potentially could extend to our patents and millions of others.”

At this time, Worlds has exhausted all legal remedies in pursuing equity and fairness from infringement, having taken this matter to the Supreme Court to no avail. If the SCOTUS reviews the Axle case and its ruling changes the patent landscape, Worlds and its legal counsel will determine if there are any new options available.

In the meantime, Worlds will harken back to its expertise in the Metaverse and will continue to work on technology development in the Metaverse and emerging NFT markets. Worlds will announce new initiatives as they become finalized.

Worlds created and patented the technology and network architecture that enabled Worlds to create the first and longest continuously operating Metaverse. Additionally, Worlds’ intellectual property serves as the foundation for many of the massive multiplayer online role-playing games that dominate virtual reality online gaming today. Worlds continues to believe in the validity of its patents and their role in the development of the online gaming enjoyed by millions of people today. Worlds hopes the Court’s review of the Axle case will provide clarity on patent eligibility for a wide array of innovations, including software.

# # #

About Worlds Inc.

With a legacy as the creator of the first celebrity 3D virtual worlds and intellectual property for multi-server technology for 3D applications that are the foundation of many massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), Worlds, Inc. (OTCQB: WDDD) is now developing the technologies that will power tomorrow’s immersive worlds and applications. By strategically leveraging NFTs and cryptocurrency to monetize digital assets, as well as interweaving cryptocurrency and NFTs with new virtual reality (VR) and AR technologies in innovative ways, Worlds is reshaping and further enhancing areas as diverse as entertainment, business, education, sports, fine art collecting, shopping, and many other aspects of our lives. For additional information about Worlds, Inc., please visit: www.Worlds.com or follow us on social media:
Twitter @WorldInc
Instagram @WorldsIncorporated
LinkedIn @WorldsInc

Contact:
Media Relations: Julie Shepherd, Accentuate PR, 847_275_3643, julie@accentuatepr.com

Forward-Looking Statements

This release contains certain forward-looking statements and information relating to Worlds Inc. that are based on the beliefs of Worlds’ management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company. Such statements reflect the current views of the Company with respect to future events including estimates and projections about its business based on certain assumptions of its management, including those described in this Release. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risk and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Additional risk factors are included in the Company’s public filings with the SEC. Should one or more of these underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein as “hoped,” “anticipated,” “believed,” “estimated,” “should,” “preparing,” “expected” or words of a similar nature. The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking statements.