PTAB

IPR2021-01119

Niantic Inc v. Nant Holdings IP LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Wide Area Augmented Reality Location-Based Services
Brief Description: The ’518 patent discloses systems for providing augmented reality (AR) content to user devices based on location identification and object recognition. The system fetches map data and AR content objects from databases and overlays the AR content on real-world imagery, often using a map-tile-based framework.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Altman (Application # 2008/0132251) and Langseth (Application # 2013/0178257).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Altman disclosed the core of the claimed invention: a location-aware mobile device that displays a map built from "map tiles" and overlays virtual icons (e.g., friends' locations, points of interest). To the extent Altman's system was not considered a full AR experience, Langseth supplied the missing elements. Langseth taught a system for interacting with a wider variety of virtual AR objects (including games) and disclosed displaying them in either a "map view," like Altman's, or an immersive "live view" that overlays content on a real-time camera feed.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine these analogous references to enhance the user experience of Altman's location-based social networking application. A POSA would incorporate Langseth’s broader array of AR content objects (e.g., games) into Altman's social platform and add Langseth's "live view" feature to create a more immersive AR environment for navigation and user interaction.
- Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable and successful because both references described systems for mobile devices that relied on the same conventional components, such as GPS sensors and cameras.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Altman (Application # 2008/0132251), Langseth (Application # 2013/0178257), CaveLie (Application # 2013/0124563), and Gelfand (Application # 2008/0268876).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Altman, Langseth, and CaveLie to argue that Gelfand rendered obvious claims requiring the rendering of AR content relative to a recognized object (e.g., claim 15). Petitioner asserted Gelfand taught a visual search system that used a mobile device's camera to identify a recognized object (e.g., a coffee shop) and then display related AR content, such as a "visual tag" bubble pointing to the object on a map or a list of actions in a first-person camera view.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing the AR system of Altman and Langseth would have looked to a reference like Gelfand to streamline user interaction. Gelfand’s object recognition provided a method for users to easily search for and select points of interest, especially in dense environments, by simply pointing their device's camera at a real-world object.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable as all references operated in the analogous field of mobile AR and relied on common hardware like cameras and displays.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Sterkel (Patent 8,762,047).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sterkel, which disclosed a "moving map" for in-flight entertainment systems, single-handedly rendered the challenged claims obvious. Sterkel taught a device (e.g., a seatback screen or portable device) that rendered AR by overlaying content items (pictures, text, games) on a real-world map based on the vehicle's real-time location. The system used location sensors, a display, and a processor; it obtained an "area of interest" (a bounded region around the vehicle); and it accessed map data stored as "map tiles" from an onboard server to render the AR content based on a view of interest.
- Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground under 35 U.S.C. §103, no motivation to combine was required. Petitioner argued that Sterkel taught every element of the claims and a POSA would have found it obvious to implement the claimed system as described in Sterkel.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on the combination of Altman, Langseth, and CaveLie (Application # 2013/0124563), arguing CaveLie provided further known implementation details for the pre-fetching and management of a multi-level, tessellated map tile system as broadly disclosed by Altman.

The petition noted that the parties in the related litigation had agreed to construe the term "tessellated tiles" as "tiles fitted together to cover an area without gaps." Petitioner contended that its prior art mappings satisfied this construction.

Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. The petition asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in a relatively early stage, with no trial date set. Furthermore, Petitioner contended there was no substantial overlap in issues, as the petition challenged claims not asserted in the district court and relied exclusively on new prior art and arguments not presented during prosecution or in the litigation.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-9, 11-20, 23-32, and 34-36 of the ’518 patent as unpatentable.