Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Mullen Industries LLC

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00702](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702)
- Patent #: [10,967,270](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10967270)
- Filed: March 25, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Meta Platforms, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/meta-platforms-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Mullen Industries, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/mullen-industries-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: System and Method for a Reality-Based Video Game
- Brief Description: The [’270](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1001) patent describes a gaming system that tracks a user's physical movement and location to control a virtual character on a virtual game field. The patent discloses employing wireless communication devices with locating and directional sensors to enable multi-user, location-based gameplay, using a multiplayer virtual Pac-Man game as an example.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 are obvious over Cheok in view of Nakamura and Foxlin077.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) (a 2003 publication describing a "Human Pacman" AR/VR game), [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) (a 2001 Japanese application for a location-based RPG), and [Foxlin077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008) (Patent [5,645,077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008) for an inertial sensor with drift compensation).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) taught the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a "Human Pacman" AR/VR system with wearable computers, GPS, and inertial sensors to track player position and orientation. However, [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) did not explicitly detail how to set an initial location or directional reference. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would look to [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) to supply a method for a *first manual input to set an origin location*, which [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) taught by allowing a user to arrange a position icon on a screen. To supply the *second manual input for setting and updating a directional reference*, a POSITA would look to [Foxlin077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008), which taught an initialization process for an inertial sensor to establish a "rest position" and a reinitialization process to update it during operation to correct for drift.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) with [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) to implement a specific, user-controlled initialization process for setting a starting location, a feature [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006)’s system required but did not detail. A POSITA would combine the result with [Foxlin077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008) to solve the known problem of sensor drift, which [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) acknowledged. This motivation was particularly strong because [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) disclosed using the "InertiaCube2" sensor, the very product covered by the [Foxlin077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008) patent.
  - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known technologies to yield the predictable result of a location-based game with manual setup for origin and direction, and in-game directional updates to improve accuracy.

#### Ground 2: Claims 4, 5, and 17 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Benini.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) (a 2001 Japanese application for a location-based RPG) and [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) (a 2002 publication on PDA-based interaction with immersive virtual environments).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) served as the primary reference, teaching a location-based game on a mobile terminal that could track a user's location via GPS and align a virtual map with the user's direction of movement. While [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) disclosed this alignment, it did not specify a method for a user to *manually update* this directional reference during gameplay. [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) was asserted to supply this missing element by teaching a user interface on a PDA with directional arrows that allowed a user to manually change the camera's orientation on a 2D map while actively exploring a virtual environment.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) with [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) to enhance the system by providing users with manual control over the map's orientation. This would be a desirable improvement, allowing a user to adjust the virtual view independently of their physical direction, for example, to navigate around a physical obstacle not present in the virtual world without disrupting gameplay.
  - **Expectation of Success:** Success was predictable because both references involved similar technologies (mobile terminals with 2D maps and directional inputs) for the same purpose of navigating a virtual space. The combination represented the application of a known user interface technique ([Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009)'s manual controls) to improve a known system ([Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007)'s game).

#### Ground 3: Claims 16 and 19 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Benini and Foxlin068.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007), [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009), and [Foxlin068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1010) (a 2002 application publication for a wearable VR system).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built upon the combination of [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) and [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) from Ground 2. Petitioner asserted that the combination of [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007) and [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) taught all limitations of the independent claim except for the dependent claim requirement that the display is a *head-mounted display (HMD)*. [Foxlin068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1010) was introduced to teach this specific element, as it disclosed a fully integrated, wearable VR system that explicitly included an HMD for immersive visualization and hands-free interaction.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to modify the [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007)/[Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009) system with the HMD taught by [Foxlin068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1010) to create a more immersive, hands-free gaming experience. This would be a recognized benefit over [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007)’s system, which required the user to hold a mobile terminal.
  - **Expectation of Success:** Integrating an HMD into a location-based tracking system was a well-known technique in the art. A POSITA would have easily achieved this combination to gain the known benefits of hands-free immersion, with a high expectation of success.

## 4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)
- **Priority Date Challenge:** Petitioner contended that the [’270](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1001) patent was not entitled to claim priority to its 2003 ([’810](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1036) provisional) or 2004 ([’481](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1037) provisional) applications. It was argued that neither provisional application provided adequate written description support under §112 for key limitations added during prosecution, such as "a second manual input for setting a directional reference...operable to be updated during said gameplay." Therefore, the effective filing date of the challenged claims was no earlier than September 1, 2004, rendering [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006), [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009), and other references valid prior art.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- **§325(d) - Same Art or Arguments:** Petitioner argued institution is appropriate because the asserted prior art ([Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006), [Nakamura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1007), [Foxlin077](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1008), [Benini](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1009), [Foxlin068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1010)) and the specific invalidity combinations were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
- **§314(a) - Fintiv Factors:** Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under *Fintiv*, asserting that the merits of the petition are overwhelmingly strong (*Fintiv* factor 6). It was highlighted that the [Cheok](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1006) reference described a nearly identical "Human Pacman" game to the example in the [’270](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00702/doc/1001) patent, and that the allegedly novel feature (updating a directional reference) was a well-known solution to the common problem of sensor drift.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 of Patent [10,967,270](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10967270) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Meta targets location-based AR/VR game patent: Cheok's "Human Pacman" prior art cited for obviousness of manual directional updates on 5 key claims.