Ch. 82Penguin couldn't lose? Who gave you that confidence? Hand it over
Su Bai challenged Penguin's defense of Happy Match-One, exposing tensions in its arguments about originality and common usage. The judge recognized Nanyou Studio's evidence supporting the originality of Crazy Match-Match-Match's gameplay, and Su Bai submitted a survey as the court moved toward deciding whether Penguin had plagiarized.
- Su Bai argued that Chen Chao's claims about the games' names and three-animal matching gameplay contradicted each other.
- Chen Chao defended Penguin by distinguishing its arguments about gameplay from its arguments about the game's name, then claimed research supported matching three animals.
- Presiding Judge Cao Liqiang identified gameplay plagiarism as the central dispute and asked whether Nanyou Studio had originally created the matching-three format.
- Su Bai submitted evidence of originality, while Chen Chao maintained Penguin's position but could provide no supporting evidence.
- Su Bai presented a survey in which twenty randomly selected passersby compared the games, and Cao Liqiang began examining it.