ImagineAR Inc v. Niantic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ImagineAR, Inc. (Canada) and Imagine AR, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Niantic, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01252, D. Del., 02/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality mobile games, including Pokémon GO, infringe seven patents related to location-based gameplay, touch-gesture controls, and virtual item trading systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves core features of augmented reality (AR) gaming, a significant and growing sector of the mobile entertainment market that overlays virtual objects and gameplay onto the user's real-world environment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of several patents-in-suit. Specifically, it alleges U.S. Patent No. 8,668,592 was cited during the prosecution of Defendant’s own patents as early as 2016. It further alleges knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,284 and its continuations based on citations made by Defendant's joint venture partner, Nintendo, during patent prosecution beginning in December 2021. The original complaint in this matter was filed on November 13, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-09-23	Priority Date for ’746 Patent
2012-11-19	Priority Date for ’592, ’284, ’797, ’827, and ’691 Patents
2013-11-12	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,579,710
2014-03-11	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,668,592
2014-07-15	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,777,746
2016-01-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’592 Patent
2021-03-16	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,946,284
2021-06-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’710 Patent
2021-12-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’284 Patent
2022-11-01	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,797
2022-11-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’797 Patent
2023-06-06	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827
2023-06-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’827 Patent
2024-08-27	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,070,691
2024-08-01	Alleged earliest pre-suit knowledge of ’691 Patent
2024-11-13	Original Complaint Filed
2025-02-26	First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,777,746 - "Gestures To Encapsulate Intent," Issued July 15, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not quote the patent’s background, but the asserted claim addresses the challenge of enabling gameplay on mobile devices where traditional controllers with dedicated buttons are absent (Compl. ¶18). This implies a need to translate imprecise touch-screen inputs into specific, intended game actions.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for interpreting a player's touch gesture on a mobile device. It involves calculating the "fidelity" of the user's gesture compared to an "optimal gesture" stored in a reference table. If the fidelity falls within a predefined range, the system matches the input to the optimal gesture and executes an associated game command, showing the character as having successfully completed the expected action (Compl. ¶18).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the user experience in touch-based gaming by making controls feel more responsive and forgiving, without making the game trivially easy or fully automatic (Compl. p. 8, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18, ¶19).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Providing a game environment in which a player can play a game via a character.
  • When there is an expectation of action from the character, receiving a touch gesture input on the mobile device.
  • Calculating fidelity of the touch gesture input to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table.
  • If the fidelity is within a predefined range associated with the optimal gesture, matching the touch gesture input to the optimal gesture and calling an associated game script wherein the character would be shown as having successfully completed the expectation.

U.S. Patent No. 8,668,592 - "Systems And Methods Of Changing Storyline Based On Player Location," Issued March 11, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not specify the problem described in the patent's background. The asserted claim suggests the technical problem is how to make virtual game worlds more dynamic and responsive to the real-world context of a distributed, multi-player user base (Compl. ¶32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the game system detects and stores a player's geographic location. In response, it retrieves a "storyline" related to that location for the player to interact with. The system also permits other players to interact with that storyline and dynamically opens and closes storylines as players enter and leave the game, thereby altering the shared game world based on the real-world presence of its participants (Compl. ¶32).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a foundational concept for location-based and augmented reality games, enabling a persistent, shared virtual world to change and evolve based on the physical locations of its players.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32, ¶33).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Providing a video game environment for a plurality of players, each having a geographic location.
  • Detecting and storing a first player's geographic location on a storage medium.
  • In response to the detected location, retrieving a storyline for the first player's character, with the storyline being related to that geographic location.
  • Permitting other players' characters to interact with the retrieved storyline.
  • Wherein other storylines are opened and closed to the first player's character as other players enter and leave the game.

U.S. Patent No. 8,579,710 - "Systems And Methods Of Virtual Goods Trading Using Ratings To Ascribe Value To Virtual Goods," Issued November 12, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for trading virtual goods where the value of a good is not static. A player can rate a virtual good, and the system automatically increases or decreases the good's starting value based on that rating, making it available for purchase at a new, dynamically calculated value (Compl. ¶38, ¶46).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 15 (Compl. ¶46, ¶47).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the trading of Pokémon in Pokémon GO, which can involve using resources like Stardust or Candy and where a traded Pokémon's level can be adjusted based on the recipient's level, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶48, p. 22, p. 25).

U.S. Patent No. 10,946,284 - "Systems And Methods For Capture And Use Of Local Elements In Gameplay," Issued March 16, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for modifying gameplay based on a player's real-world location. The system creates a "local element script" associated with the player's location, which can modify a virtual character's statistics or a plot node. The script's actuation can affect both the individual player and other players in the game (Compl. ¶52, ¶60; '284 Patent, col. 15:15-16:51).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶60, ¶61).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses features like "Party Play" in Pokémon GO, where players in a shared location can complete challenges and receive in-game rewards or battle bonuses ("Party Power") that modify character abilities (Compl. ¶62, p. 34, p. 37).

U.S. Patent No. 11,484,797 - "Systems And Methods For Capture And Use Of Local Elements In Gameplay," Issued November 1, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’284 Patent, this patent relates to the same technology of using a player's real-world geographic location to create and actuate a "local element script" that modifies gameplay elements like character statistics or plot nodes for multiple players (Compl. ¶66, ¶72, ¶74; '797 Patent, col. 15:13-16:50).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶74, ¶75).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the same as those for the ’284 Patent, including "Party Play" and other location-based multiplayer interactions in Pokémon GO (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827 - "Systems And Methods For Capture And Use Of Local Elements In Gameplay," Issued June 6, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’284 Patent, this patent relates to the same technology of using a player's real-world geographic location to create and actuate a "local element script" that modifies gameplay for multiple players (Compl. ¶80, ¶86, ¶88; '827 Patent, col. 15:13-16:50).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶88, ¶89).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the same as those for the ’284 Patent, primarily location-based multiplayer features like "Party Play" in Pokémon GO (Compl. ¶90).

U.S. Patent No. 12,070,691 - "Systems And Methods For Capture And Use Of Local Elements In Gameplay," Issued August 27, 2024

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’284 Patent, this patent relates to the same technology of using a player's real-world geographic location to create and actuate a "local element script" that modifies gameplay for multiple players (Compl. ¶94, ¶100, ¶102; '691 Patent, col. 15:14-16:52).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶102, ¶103).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the same as those for the ’284 Patent, primarily location-based multiplayer features like "Party Play" in Pokémon GO (Compl. ¶104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are software products and services including Pokémon GO, Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Skatrix, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite (Compl. ¶5). The complaint uses Pokémon GO as its primary example for infringement allegations.

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are augmented reality mobile games where players interact with a virtual world that is overlaid onto their physical surroundings via their mobile device's camera and GPS (Compl. ¶20, p. 5). Key functionalities cited in the complaint include: a touch-based gesture system for in-game actions, such as swiping on the screen to throw a "Poké Ball" to catch a creature (Compl. ¶20, p. 7); location-based gameplay, where players must physically move to different geographic locations to encounter game elements like creatures, "PokéStops," and "Gyms" (Compl. ¶34, p. 16-17); and cooperative multiplayer features, such as "Party Play," where players in the same real-world location can team up to complete challenges and participate in "Raid Battles" against powerful creatures (Compl. ¶34, p. 17). The complaint references a screenshot from a video that depicts a user interacting with the game environment on a mobile device (Compl. ¶20, p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,777,746 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of enabling gameplay with a character in a game environment on a mobile device, comprising:	Pokémon Go enables gameplay with a character in a game environment on a mobile device.	¶20	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
providing a game environment in which a player can play a game via a character;	Pokémon Go provides a game environment in which a player uses a character (an avatar) to play the game.	¶20	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
when there is an expectation of action from the character in the game, receiving a touch gesture input on the mobile device;	When a player encounters a Pokémon, creating an expectation to catch it, the game receives a "swiping touch gesture" to throw a Pokéball. A screenshot illustrates the user interface for this action (Compl. p. 7).	¶20	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
calculating fidelity of the touch gesture input to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table; and	Pokémon Go allegedly calculates the fidelity of the throw, resulting in different quality throws such as "Nice," "Great," or "Excellent," which are associated with different rewards.	¶20	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
if the fidelity is within a predefined range associated with the optimal gesture, matching the touch gesture input to the optimal gesture and calling an associated game script wherein the character would be shown as having successfully completed the expectation.	If the throw is successful, the game awards Experience Points (XP) and other rewards, with better throws (e.g., "Excellent") yielding higher XP, thereby calling a game script showing successful completion. A provided table shows the different XP rewards for different throw types (Compl. p. 8).	¶20	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the interpretation of "calculating fidelity." The defense could argue that awarding different levels of XP for different outcomes is a common game mechanic and does not equate to the specific process of "calculating fidelity of the touch gesture input to an optimal gesture in a reference gesture table" as required by the claim. The analysis may focus on whether the accused product performs a mere qualitative assessment (e.g., hit/miss, good/better/best) versus a quantitative "fidelity" calculation against a stored "optimal gesture."

U.S. Patent No. 8,668,592 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of enabling virtual gameplay on a computing device in communication with a storage medium...	Pokémon Go enables virtual gameplay on a mobile device, which is in communication with a storage medium, identified as Google's Cloud Datastore.	¶34	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
providing a video game environment on the computing device, enabling a first player to play a game via a character, the first player being one of a plurality of players which have access to the video game environment, each player having a geographic location;	Pokémon Go provides a multiplayer game environment where each player has a character and a real-world geographic location. A screenshot shows multiple players in different locations interacting with the game world (Compl. p. 14).	¶34	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
detecting, via an input device in communication with the computing device, the first player's geographic location, and storing the player's geographic location on the storage medium; and	Pokémon Go uses the mobile device's GPS and other sensors to detect the player's location and stores this location on its backend storage medium.	¶34	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.
in response to the detected geographic location, retrieving... a storyline for the first player's character to interact with, the retrieved storyline being related to the geographic location of the first player, and permitting the other players' characters to interact with the retrieved storyline...; wherein other storylines are opened and closed to the first player's character as other players enter and leave the game.	In response to a player's location, the game allegedly retrieves storylines such as location-based "Raid Battles" or "Party Play" challenges. It is alleged that other players can interact with these storylines and that Party Play sessions are "closed" (disbanded) if the host player leaves the party.	¶34	The complaint does not provide the patent specification.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The definition of "storyline" will likely be a key issue. The defense may argue that game mechanics like "Raid Battles" or group "Party Challenges" are dynamic events, not narrative "storylines" in the sense required by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over whether storylines are truly "opened and closed...as other players enter and leave the game." The plaintiff's theory appears to rely on features like a "Party" disbanding if the host leaves (Compl. p. 17), raising the question of whether this specific function meets the broader claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "calculating fidelity" (from '746 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central technical step of the asserted method claim in the ’746 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend on whether Pokémon GO's system of grading player throws ("Nice," "Great," "Excellent") and awarding corresponding XP constitutes "calculating fidelity."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide the patent specification for analysis. Based on the claim language alone, "fidelity" suggests a quantitative measure of accuracy or closeness. Evidence for a broader interpretation might argue that any system which grades a gesture's quality performs a fidelity calculation, while evidence for a narrower interpretation would suggest it requires a specific mathematical comparison of the input gesture's vector data against a stored "optimal" gesture vector.

• Term: "storyline" (from '592 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining whether location-based events in the accused games, such as raids or group challenges, meet the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether a wide range of dynamic game events can be considered infringing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide the '592 Patent specification. However, the related '284 Patent, which shares inventors and a similar technical focus, provides a broad definition.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’284 Patent defines "storyline" to "include, but is not necessarily limited to, the aesthetics, virtual characters that are available, plot, set of plot nodes, scene, settings etc." ('284 Patent, col. 6:30-36). If this definition is read as informative for the '592 patent, it could support an argument that location-based "Raid Battles" or "Party Play" events constitute a "storyline."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Without the '592 patent specification, a party could argue for a more conventional, narrower definition limited to narrative plot developments, suggesting that discrete, repeatable game events like raids do not qualify.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces and contributes to infringement by providing its software products, instructions, manuals, and marketing materials, which actively encourage and enable end-users to perform the methods claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶29, ¶43, ¶57, ¶71, ¶85, ¶99).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the ’746 Patent, the allegation is based on knowledge acquired at least as of the filing of the original complaint on November 13, 2024 (Compl. ¶21). For the ’592, ’710, ’284, ’797, ’827, and ’691 patents, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on citations to these patents or their family members during the prosecution of patents owned by Defendant or its joint venture partner, Nintendo, with the earliest alleged knowledge dating back to 2016 (Compl. ¶30, ¶35, ¶44, ¶58, ¶72, ¶86, ¶100).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "calculating fidelity" ('746 Patent) and "storyline" ('592 Patent), which are central to the infringement allegations, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused game mechanics? The case may depend on whether a system of rewarding throw quality with variable XP constitutes a "fidelity" calculation, and whether dynamic, location-based events like "Raid Battles" qualify as a "storyline."
• A second central issue will be willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint makes specific allegations that Defendant was aware of several of the asserted patents years before the lawsuit because they were cited during the prosecution of its own, or its partner's, patent applications. This raises a key question for the court regarding Defendant's state of mind and potential liability for enhanced damages.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: For the '284 patent family, the infringement theory rests on multi-player features modifying statistics for "other players." The case will likely require a detailed technical analysis of how features like "Party Play" actually function to determine if they meet the specific, multi-part logical steps required by the asserted claims.