PTAB

IPR2025-00740

Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Location-Based Games and Augmented Reality Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’559 patent describes a location-based augmented reality game system. The system uses a head-mounted device to overlay virtual game elements onto a user’s view of their physical environment and may use a landscape detector to incorporate information about the real-world terrain into the game logic.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 are obvious over Jaszlics in view of Rallison, Sofer, and Ronzani.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Rallison (Patent 6,369,952), Sofer (WO 2003/107039), and Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art collectively taught every element of the challenged claims. Jaszlics was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a "combined reality" system for gaming that used a head-mounted display ("electronic goggles") to overlay virtual images (e.g., tanks) onto real-world scenes. This system operated using "virtual simulation and control software," which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "video game logic." The secondary references were used to demonstrate the obviousness of specific implementation details for such a system.
      • Processor (Claim 1[a]): Petitioner contended that Rallison taught a head-mounted display containing integrated "image processor circuitry," making it obvious to include a processor in Jaszlics's device.
      • Display (Claim 1[b]): Jaszlics was argued to teach displaying "3-D video game indicia" (virtual tanks, path markers) with respect to a "physical playfield" (the real-world environment). The system was explicitly described for "war games" and other recreational uses.
      • Detector (Claim 1[c]): Petitioner asserted Jaszlics taught a detector for landscape characteristics in the form of a range scanner that determined the shape and distance of real-world objects to create "virtual masking objects." To show the obviousness of a head-mounted detector, Petitioner combined Jaszlics with Sofer, which expressly disclosed a head-mounted laser range scanner. In an alternative mapping, Petitioner argued Jaszlics also disclosed a camera-based detector for passive ranging, and that Ronzani's teaching of a head-mounted device with an integrated camera rendered this configuration obvious.
      • Location Device (Claim 1[d]): Petitioner argued Jaszlics disclosed a GPS receiver ("observer sensors") for updating the user's physical location and feeding that data to the game logic. The combination with Ronzani, which taught a head-mounted computer with an integrated GPS, was used to establish the obviousness of a head-mounted location device.
      • Dependent Claims: Petitioner argued the limitations of the dependent claims were also obvious. For claim 12, using a "non-transparent display" was presented as a known design choice for video see-through systems. The addition of an "accelerometer" was taught by Rallison for determining device orientation. For claim 17, Jaszlics's disclosure of using attitude and direction sensor data to update the simulation met the limitation of utilizing "pitch, roll, and direction." For claim 20, Jaszlics taught using a detector for "scenario preparation" before a simulation executes, meeting the limitation of utilizing the detector "before the start of said video game."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner's primary motivation was that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement Jaszlics's conceptual augmented reality system for a mobile user, would combine it with known, practical components from analogous art. A POSITA would look to references like Rallison, Sofer, and Ronzani for established techniques to integrate processors, sensors, cameras, and GPS receivers into a functional, head-mounted device. Each combination was framed as the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device for its intended purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combinations involved the straightforward integration of well-understood components. The references allegedly treated the incorporation of these elements as routine design choices rather than complex technical challenges, leading to a predictable and functional result.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), based on Fintiv factors, would be inappropriate. The basis for this argument was that the co-pending district court litigation was in a very early stage. With the trial scheduled more than eighteen months in the future and minimal substantive discovery having occurred, Petitioner contended that an IPR would be a more efficient resolution of the validity dispute.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of Patent 10,828,559 as unpatentable.