Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00703
• Patent #: 11,033,821
• Filed: March 25, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems for Multi-User Virtual Gameplay
• Brief Description: The ’821 patent relates to systems using wireless communication devices with locating and directional sensors to facilitate multi-user gameplay in a virtual world. The technology is exemplified by a reality-based video game where a player's physical movements control a character in a virtual environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cheok and Foxlin077 - Claims 1 and 11 are obvious over Cheok in view of Foxlin077.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cheok (a May 2003 publication titled Human Pacman), Foxlin077 (Patent 5,645,077).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cheok, which discloses a "Human Pacman" augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) game, teaches nearly all limitations of claim 1. Cheok's system uses wearable computers (wireless communication devices) with a head-mounted display (HMD), GPS, and dead-reckoning modules (locating devices) to track a player's physical location and represent it in a virtual world. Petitioner contended the only element not explicitly taught by Cheok is establishing a gameplay direction by "recording a manually provided direction in response to a prompt." Foxlin077, which covers the specific InertiaCube2 inertial sensor used in Cheok, remedies this deficiency by disclosing an initialization process to correct sensor drift. This process involves a user placing the sensor in a stationary "rest position" in response to an implicit or explicit prompt, thereby establishing a reference orientation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Cheok's system, which explicitly uses the InertiaCube2 sensor, would naturally consult the corresponding Foxlin077 patent for implementation details, including the necessary initialization procedures. Cheok also acknowledged unaddressed sensor tracking issues, which would further motivate a POSITA to incorporate Foxlin077's drift-compensation and initialization teachings to create a more stable and usable system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involves using a known initialization method (from Foxlin077) for the exact sensor hardware specified in the primary system (Cheok). This represents a combination of known, compatible elements to achieve the predictable result of a functional AR/VR gaming system with a stable orientation reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nakamura and Benini - Claims 1, 4, 11, 16, and 30 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Benini.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2001070658A), Benini (a 2002 publication on PDA-based interaction with immersive virtual environments).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Nakamura discloses a location-based role-playing game on a mobile terminal with GPS, satisfying most limitations of claim 1, including a wireless device, display, and a locating device that maps a physical location to a virtual one. However, Nakamura only teaches rotating the game's display to align with the user's direction of movement without specifying a mechanism for manual user input in response to a prompt. Benini was argued to supply this element by disclosing a PDA-based system for navigating virtual environments that uses on-screen arrows. These arrows act as a prompt, allowing a user to manually input commands to change the virtual camera's orientation ("look") and position ("walk").
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement Nakamura's display rotation feature would look to known user interface solutions for mobile devices. Benini provides a well-understood interface using on-screen arrows on a similar portable device, making it a natural and logical component to integrate. This combination would enhance Nakamura's system by providing users with explicit manual control over their virtual orientation, improving gameplay when, for example, navigating around a real-world obstacle not depicted on the virtual map.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as both references describe navigating 2D maps on similar mobile terminals. Integrating Benini's conventional user input method into Nakamura's gaming system was presented as an obvious design choice from a finite number of predictable solutions for user navigation control.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Cheok and Nakamura - Claim 102 is obvious over Cheok in view of Nakamura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cheok (a May 2003 publication), Nakamura (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2001070658A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that independent claim 102 is similar to claim 1 but requires establishing an "origin of gameplay" by recording a manually provided origin in response to a prompt. Cheok's system tracks player position relative to an "initialization point" but does not detail how this origin is manually set via a prompt. Nakamura was argued to teach this missing element by disclosing a feature to "manually set the initial position setting." In Nakamura's system, the user is prompted with a movable icon on the display to adjust and confirm their starting position in the virtual world.
  • Motivation to Combine: Cheok's system requires an initialization point to function but fails to provide implementation details. A POSITA would recognize the need to add this functionality and would find Nakamura's method for manually setting a game origin to be a suitable and logical solution. The similarity of the location-based gaming concepts in both references would make this integration straightforward.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining a known system (Cheok) with a known method for a necessary but unspecified step (the initialization process from Nakamura). This combination would predictably result in a fully operational location-based game.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 16 and 30 based on the combination of Cheok, Foxlin077, and Rallison (to add a speaker/microphone), and challenged claim 102 as obvious over Nakamura alone.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution is appropriate under §325(d) because the core prior art references (Cheok, Nakamura, Foxlin077) and the asserted combinations were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’821 patent. Petitioner also stated its intent to address any arguments for discretionary denial under Fintiv if raised by the Patent Owner in its preliminary response.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102 of Patent 11,033,821 as unpatentable.