Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00739
• Patent #: 10,179,277
• Filed: March 25, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 8, 13, and 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Location-Based Games and Augmented Reality Systems
• Brief Description: The ’277 patent describes a location-based augmented reality (AR) gaming system. The system uses a head-mounted display (HMD) to overlay virtual game indicia onto a user's view of their physical environment, referred to as a "physical playfield," and may use landscape detectors and location devices to integrate the real world into the game logic.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 are obvious over Jaszlics in view of Rallison.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Rallison (Patent 6,369,952), and Maguire (Patent 6,411,266) for dependent claim 13.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jaszlics, which describes a system for combining virtual images with real-world scenes for applications like military war games, discloses the vast majority of the challenged claim limitations. The combination with Rallison renders obvious the few remaining elements related to integrating a processor into an HMD and determining its pitch and roll.
    • Independent Claim 1: Petitioner asserted that Jaszlics teaches the core AR system recited in claim 1. This includes providing 3-D video game indicia (e.g., virtual tanks) to an HMD (e.g., electronic goggles) with respect to a physical playfield (the real-world scene). Jaszlics further discloses using a "detector," in the form of a laser range scanner, to determine landscape characteristics (shape and distance of real-world objects) and using that data in its game logic to create more realistic interactions (e.g., virtual masking). Jaszlics also teaches using a "locating device," such as a GPS receiver, to determine the user's physical location and update the game simulation accordingly. Petitioner contended the only element not explicitly disclosed is the HMD including a processor. Rallison, which describes an HMD with an integrated "image processor circuitry," was cited to supply this limitation.
    • Dependent Claim 8: Petitioner argued that Jaszlics discloses "utilizing an infrared receiver." Jaszlics teaches using an "infrared laser scanner," which inherently includes an infrared receiver to detect the reflected infrared signal.
    • Dependent Claim 13: This claim adds determining the pitch, roll, and height of the HMD. Petitioner argued that Jaszlics discloses using sensors to detect the user's "three-dimensional position and attitude" in conjunction with its HMD, where attitude is understood to include pitch, roll, and yaw. Rallison was cited as expressly teaching the use of inertial sensors in an HMD to determine pitch and roll. For determining "height," Petitioner pointed to Jaszlics's disclosure of using an altimeter to determine the observer's 3D position, arguing it would have been obvious to use this for the HMD's height. Maguire was cited as further support, as it describes using an altimeter to monitor the height of a viewer's head in an AR HMD.
    • Dependent Claim 20: This claim adds "utilizing manual controls" and determining pitch and roll. Petitioner asserted that Jaszlics explicitly discloses using manual controls like joysticks, pushbuttons, and a mouse to interact with the system. The pitch and roll limitations were argued to be obvious for the same reasons as in claim 13.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to implement the AR system in Jaszlics would have been motivated to incorporate a processor into the HMD, as taught by Rallison, to improve the device. Petitioner contended this was a straightforward application of a known technique to a similar device, as Rallison describes its HMD electronics as "generally well-known in the art." Because HMD specifics were not a focus of Jaszlics, a POSITA would have naturally looked to a reference like Rallison for implementation details.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Rallison treats the incorporation of an image processor into an HMD as a conventional and well-understood design choice, indicating the combination would have been predictable.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
  • Regarding 35 U.S.C. §325(d), Petitioner noted that neither Jaszlics nor Rallison was cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’277 patent, meaning the petition raises new questions of patentability.
  • Regarding discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the co-pending district court litigation is at a very early stage, with a trial date more than 18 months away and a motion to transfer pending. Petitioner also committed that, if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in litigation any invalidity defense that was or could have been raised in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 of Patent 10,179,277 as unpatentable.