Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00702
• Patent #: 10,967,270
• Filed: March 25, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Location-Based Gaming System
• Brief Description: The ’270 patent discloses systems for multi-user, location-based gameplay in a virtual world. The technology uses wireless communication devices equipped with locating and directional sensors to track a user's physical movement and translate it to a virtual character, citing a multiplayer "PACMAN" game as an example.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 are obvious over Cheok, Nakamura, and Foxlin077.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cheok (a 2003 journal article on a "Human Pacman" game), Nakamura (Japanese Application # JP2001070658A), and Foxlin077 (Patent 5,645,077).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cheok, which discloses a "Human Pacman" augmented/virtual reality game, teaches most limitations of independent claim 4. Cheok's system uses wearable computers with GPS and inertial sensors to track a player's real-world position and orientation, mapping it to a virtual character. However, Cheok does not explicitly disclose a manual input for setting an initial location or a directional reference that is updatable during gameplay. Nakamura was argued to supply the missing "first manual input for setting an origin location," as it teaches a location-based game where a user manually sets an initial position on a display. Foxlin077, which covers the specific inertial sensor used in Cheok, was argued to supply the "second manual input for setting a directional reference" that is "operable to be updated during said gameplay." Foxlin077 teaches an initialization process where a user manually sets a reference orientation and a reinitialization process that can be triggered mid-operation to update that reference and correct for sensor drift.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Cheok with Nakamura because Cheok's system requires an initialization point but fails to detail the process, making Nakamura's manual setup a logical and known solution. A POSITA would combine Cheok with Foxlin077 because Cheok acknowledges potential sensor tracking issues, and Foxlin077 provides a specific solution (drift compensation via reinitialization) for the very inertial sensor used in Cheok's system, thereby improving accuracy and user experience.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known solutions (Nakamura's location setting, Foxlin077's sensor initialization) to address known problems or fill implementation gaps in a primary system (Cheok), using components for their intended purposes.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 5, and 17 are obvious over Nakamura and Benini.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Japanese Application # JP2001070658A) and Benini (a 2002 conference paper on PDA-based interaction with virtual environments).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Nakamura as the primary reference, teaching a location-based role-playing game on a mobile terminal that can set an initial location and rotate the display to align real and virtual displacement. However, Nakamura does not teach a manual input for setting and updating a directional reference during gameplay. Benini was argued to supply this feature by disclosing a PDA system for exploring virtual worlds that uses on-screen directional arrows, allowing a user to manually change the camera's orientation (the directional reference) at any time during navigation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve Nakamura's system. While Nakamura taught aligning the display, it did not specify the mechanism. Benini provided a well-understood user interface method (directional arrows) on a similar device (a PDA) to give the user manual control over the viewing direction, which would be a natural and beneficial feature to add.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success, as both systems use similar technologies (mobile terminals with 2D maps of virtual worlds). The combination merely integrates a known UI feature from Benini into the analogous Nakamura system to provide enhanced user control, a predictable improvement.

Ground 3: Claims 16 and 19 are obvious over Nakamura, Benini, and Foxlin068.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Japanese Application # JP2001070658A), Benini (a 2002 conference paper), and Foxlin068 (a 2002 U.S. patent application publication).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Nakamura and Benini from Ground 2 to further address dependent claims 16 and 19, which require the display to be a "head-mounted display" (HMD). The Nakamura/Benini combination teaches a system on a handheld mobile terminal. Foxlin068 was argued to teach a fully integrated, wearable VR system that explicitly includes an HMD for tracking a user's head orientation and position, enabling hands-free interaction.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate an HMD as taught by Foxlin068 into the Nakamura/Benini system to create a more immersive and hands-free gaming experience. This would be a recognized benefit over Nakamura's system, which requires a user to hold the mobile terminal.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected, as replacing a handheld screen with an HMD was a well-known design choice in the VR field to improve immersion. The integration was a predictable combination of known components to achieve a known benefit.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution is appropriate and discretionary denial is not warranted.
• Under §325(d), Petitioner contended that the asserted prior art (Cheok, Nakamura, Foxlin077, Benini, and Foxlin068) and the specific combinations and arguments were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, Petitioner asserted that the petition has overwhelming merit, particularly because the primary reference (Cheok) is directed to a nearly identical "Human Pacman" implementation as the one described in the ’270 patent specification.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’270 patent as unpatentable.