DCT
1:17-cv-01810
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Niantic Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: Niantic, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01810, D. Del., 12/15/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Niantic, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented-reality mobile game, Pokémon Go, infringes a patent related to methods for integrating a user's real-world physical location and camera imagery into a video game environment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of location-based augmented reality (AR) for mobile gaming, a field that blends digital content with the user's physical surroundings to create immersive experiences.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent asserted is a continuation of an earlier application that is now U.S. Patent No. 8,715,087.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-04-12 | ’127 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-07-06 | Accused Product "Pokémon Go" Released in U.S. |
| 2017-10-31 | ’127 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-12-15 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,802,127 - “Video Game Including User Determined Location Information”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a deficiency in conventional video games: a "lack of choices of a physical location being incorporated into a video game" (’127 Patent, col. 2:57-65). Traditional games are typically confined to predetermined, fictional settings.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system to solve this by mapping a user's actual physical location into a video game. It uses a device's global navigation satellite system (GNSS) reader and camera to capture the user's location and surroundings, displaying the real-world view as a video backdrop within the game, and then overlaying virtual game objects (’127 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:50-55). This allows a user to, for example, play a racing game through the streets of their own neighborhood (’127 Patent, col. 5:1-19).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables a more personalized and immersive form of gameplay by merging a player's real-world environment with the virtual game world (’127 Patent, col. 5:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct and indirect infringement of claims 1-24 (’127 Patent, Compl. ¶13, ¶22).
- Independent method claim 1 recites the essential elements:
- Receiving a first position indicator from a GNSS reading.
- Obtaining image data from a camera comprising two or more images of the location.
- Mapping the image data into the game’s virtual environment, displaying it as video, and showing virtual objects not physically present.
- Receiving a second position indicator as the user navigates the area.
- Saving the second position indicator to a memory.
- Storing the second position indicator in memory when the video game is not executing.
- The complaint also asserts infringement of independent claims 9 (non-transitory medium) and 17 (computer system), which largely mirror the steps of claim 1 (’127 Patent, col. 9:65-10:46, col. 11:1-12:26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the location-based, augmented-reality video game "Pokémon Go" (’127 Patent, Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes Pokémon Go as a game for smartphones that uses a device's location services (including GPS) and camera to operate (Compl. ¶11, ¶16-17). Players navigate real-world geographic areas to find and interact with virtual creatures ("Pokémon") that are displayed on the device's screen, often overlaid on a live feed from the camera, creating an augmented reality experience (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a screenshot from Niantic's website showing the Pokémon Go user interface, which features a virtual character overlaid on a real-world camera view. (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’127 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a first position indicator representing a first current physical location for a user of a video game, wherein said first position indicator is determined at least in part by taking a global navigation satellite system reading of said first current physical location; | The Pokémon Go application receives a user's physical location, which is determined in part by a GPS reading. | ¶16 | col. 9:20-25 |
| obtaining image data relating to said first current physical location, said image data comprising two or more camera images of said first current physical location; | The Pokémon Go application obtains image data of the user's surroundings from the smartphone's camera. | ¶17 | col. 9:26-29 |
| mapping said image data into a virtual environment of said video game by displaying said image data as a video, wherein said user experiences within said virtual environment real life objects from said first current physical location, and said user simultaneously encounters within said virtual environment virtual objects that are not physically present in said first current physical location; | The application maps camera image data into the game’s virtual environment, displaying the user's real-world location as a video feed and overlaying virtual objects such as Pokémon. This is illustrated in a website screenshot showing the AR view. | ¶18; p. 5 | col. 9:30-38 |
| receiving a second position indicator representing a second current physical location for said user as said user navigates a geographic area surrounding said first current physical location; | As users move through geographic areas, the application continues to receive position indicators reflecting their current location. | ¶19 | col. 9:39-42 |
| saving at least said second position indicator to a memory; and | The application saves position indicators to memory on the user's smartphone. | ¶20 | col. 9:43-44 |
| storing at least said second position indicator in said memory when said video game is not executing. | The application stores location information "across execution instantiations," such as the locations where users encountered and caught Pokémon. | ¶20 | col. 9:45-46 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint’s allegation for the "storing... when said video game is not executing" limitation relies on the game saving locations "across execution instantiations" (Compl. ¶20). This raises the question of whether persisting game-state data between sessions is technically the same as the claimed step of "storing" data "when" the game is not running. The court may need to determine if this requires an active storage operation to occur after the application process has terminated, or if passively retaining data in memory between sessions meets the limitation.
- Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "obtaining image data...comprising two or more camera images" (Claim 1[b]). The infringement allegation states the game "obtains image data," but does not specify if this data constitutes the "two or more camera images" required by the claim, as opposed to a continuous video stream.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "storing at least said second position indicator in said memory when said video game is not executing"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the infringement analysis. The definition will determine whether standard game-state persistence, where data is saved during gameplay for later retrieval, meets the claim requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its temporal component—"when...not executing"—is specific and potentially distinguishes the claimed method from general data-saving functions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "The location information can be saved, so that the user does not have to reacquire the location information every time the user plays the game" (’127 Patent, col. 5:20-22). This language could support an interpretation where any form of data persistence between game sessions satisfies the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s use of "when" could be argued to impose a specific timing requirement, implying the storage action must occur during a period of non-execution. Dependent claim 8, which recites "retrieving said second position indicator from said memory when said video game starts executing" (’127 Patent, col. 9:62-64), may suggest a distinct boundary between "executing" and "not executing" states that could be used to argue for a narrower construction of the "storing" step.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating Niantic provides the Pokémon Go application and encourages infringing use through its website, advertisements, and in-game instructions (Compl. ¶24-26). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the Pokémon Go application is a material part of the invention, is designed for combination with users' smartphones to perform the patented method, and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶27-30).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Niantic became aware of the ’127 patent "through at least the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are presented.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on two central questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the limitation "storing... when said video game is not executing" be construed to cover the standard practice of saving game-state data that persists between separate gameplay sessions, or does it require a more specific technical operation that occurs only after the application has fully terminated?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will the plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused Pokémon Go application performs the specific act of storing location data during a state of non-execution, as required by the claim, and how will the defendant challenge that characterization of its product's functionality?