Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00738
• Patent #: 9,744,448
• Filed: March 26, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3, 6-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Location-Based Games and Augmented Reality Systems
• Brief Description: The ’448 patent discloses a location-based augmented reality (AR) game system. The system uses a head-mounted display (HMD) to overlay virtual game indicia onto a user’s physical environment, with the virtual location of a character determined by the user's physical location as tracked by a device like a GPS.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, and 7 are obvious over Jaszlics in view of Sofer and Ronzani.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Sofer (WO 2003/107039), and Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jaszlics, the primary reference, discloses the core elements of independent claim 1. Jaszlics teaches an AR system for military training and other games that combines virtual images (e.g., 3D tanks) with real-world scenes on an HMD. The system uses a range scanner to determine "landscape characteristics" (shape and distance of real-world objects) and a GPS to determine the user's physical location, with this data being used by the game logic to update the simulation. To address potential interpretations that the claimed "detector" and "locating device" must be head-mounted, Petitioner cited Sofer for its explicit disclosure of a head-mounted laser range scanner and Ronzani for its disclosure of various HMDs that include a GPS receiver. For the dependent claims, Petitioner asserted Jaszlics’s “unit boundary” concept meets the "pre-defined virtual barrier" of claim 3, and its virtual tanks with guns satisfy the "weapon" limitation of claim 7.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to adapt Jaszlics's AR system for a mobile individual user, rather than just a vehicle-based one. This would require making the range scanner and location sensor portable. A POSITA would have looked to known solutions for lightweight, head-mounted versions of these components, leading them to Sofer and Ronzani. The combination was presented as a simple aggregation of known elements to achieve the predictable result of a portable, self-contained AR gaming system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination merely involved the placement of known, available components (a range scanner and GPS receiver) onto an HMD, a straightforward integration.

Ground 2: Claim 6 is obvious over the Ground 1 Prior Art in further view of Morihira.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Sofer (WO 2003/107039), Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), and Morihira (Patent 6,361,438).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged dependent claim 6, which requires the transparency of a virtual character to be based on distance. Petitioner argued that Morihira directly addresses this limitation. Morihira teaches a "Video Game Transparency Control System" that solves the known problem of virtual objects in 3D games obscuring the player's view. It explicitly discloses changing the transparency of an object model based on its distance from the hypothetical camera (the user's viewpoint), such as by making an object more transparent as it gets closer.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing the AR system of Jaszlics would encounter the same well-known issue of virtual elements obstructing the user's view of the real world or other game elements. Morihira provides a known solution to this exact problem. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Morihira's distance-based transparency technique into the Jaszlics system to improve realism, user experience, and safety, which are recognized benefits discussed in Morihira.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been successful through the routine application of conventional software programming.

Ground 3: Claim 8 is obvious over the Ground 1 Prior Art in further view of Robarts.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Sofer (WO 2003/107039), Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), and Robarts (Application # 2004/0002843).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claim 8, which adds an "event envelope" wherein an event occurs upon a virtual character's entry. Petitioner asserted that Robarts teaches this feature in its location-based gaming system. Robarts describes a game where "simulated phenomena" (e.g., ghosts) are detected and become visible to the player only when they enter a predefined area, such as a 300-foot radius around the user. This area functions as an event envelope, triggering the event of the ghost's appearance.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that since both Jaszlics and Robarts describe location-based gaming and simulation systems, a POSITA would recognize the strong similarities. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Robarts' event envelope concept into the Jaszlics system to enhance gameplay by adding variety, challenge, and suspense. This was presented as a common goal in game design, making the combination a logical and obvious step to improve the base system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as implementing event triggers based on proximity is a routine task in conventional game programming.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d). Regarding the Fintiv factors, Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage with a trial date more than eighteen months away, minimizing concerns of inefficiency or conflicting outcomes. Regarding §325(d), Petitioner asserted that the core prior art combination for its primary ground (Jaszlics, Sofer, and Ronzani) was never presented to or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’448 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 6-8 of the ’448 patent as unpatentable.