Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00741
• Patent #: 11,376,493
• Filed: March 26, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 12, 17, 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Location-Based Games and Augmented Reality Systems
• Brief Description: The ’493 patent describes a location-based augmented reality (AR) game system. The system uses a portable, head-worn device to overlay 3-D video game indicia onto a user's view of their physical environment, or "playfield," and uses landscape and location data to inform the game.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Jaszlics, Sofer, and Ronzani - Claims 1 and 20 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 is a foundational reference teaching a "combined reality" system for military simulations and games like laser tag. Jaszlics disclosed a portable, head-worn display (e.g., electronic goggles) that overlays 3-D virtual images, such as tanks, onto a user's real-world view. This system used a range scanner to detect landscape characteristics (e.g., shape and distance of objects) to create "virtual masking objects" so virtual elements could interact realistically with the physical environment (e.g., appear behind a tree). Jaszlics also taught using a GPS receiver to track a mobile user's location to update the simulation. Petitioner contended this combination teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 except for the explicit disclosure of a head-worn detector and a head-worn location device. Sofer was introduced to remedy this, as it expressly disclosed a head-mounted laser range scanner for detecting obstacles. Ronzani was introduced as an alternative or supplement, teaching a head-mounted display system for entertainment that could incorporate a head-worn camera (another form of detector) and a head-worn GPS receiver (a location updating device). For claim 20, which requires utilizing the detector before the start of the game, Petitioner argued this would have been obvious for scenario preparation and to ensure the simulation was properly displayed from the outset, a concept also taught by Jaszlics.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a more functional and realistic AR system for a mobile user, as described in Jaszlics. To maintain the system's portability and ensure sensor data was captured from the user's vantage point, it would have been a simple and logical step to mount the detector and GPS receiver on the user's head. Sofer and Ronzani provided well-known, off-the-shelf solutions for implementing such head-worn sensors, making them natural references for a POSITA to consult.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would have been reasonably expected, as the combination involved the straightforward integration of known components (head-worn scanners, cameras, and GPS units) into an existing AR system (Jaszlics's goggles) to perform their conventional functions without modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Jaszlics, Sofer, Ronzani, and Rallison - Claims 12 and 17 are obvious over the Ground 1 prior art in further view of Rallison.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jaszlics (Patent 6,166,744), Sofer (WO 2003/107039), Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), and Rallison (Patent 6,369,952).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination asserted in Ground 1 to address the additional limitations of dependent claims 12 and 17. For claim 12, Petitioner argued Jaszlics's disclosure of "virtual reality goggles" inherently suggested a non-transparent, video see-through display, which was one of two known display types for AR. The requirement for a camera detector was already met by the combination with Ronzani in Ground 1. To meet the "accelerometer" limitation, Petitioner introduced Rallison, which taught a head-worn tracker for an HMD that explicitly used accelerometers to sense pitch and roll. For claim 17, which requires utilizing the "pitch, roll, and direction" of the head-mounted display in the game, Petitioner argued that Jaszlics taught using sensor data on the user's "attitude" (which includes pitch and roll) and direction to update the game simulation. Rallison reinforced this by teaching the use of accelerometers for the express purpose of tracking head orientation to correctly render a virtual environment.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rallison's teachings to solve the imperative problem of accurately tracking a user's head orientation. Without knowing the head's pitch and roll, virtual objects could not be correctly registered and overlaid onto the real world, destroying the AR illusion. Rallison provided a known and obvious solution by teaching the integration of accelerometers into an HMD for this exact purpose.
  • Expectation of Success: There would have been a high expectation of success, as it involved incorporating a conventional sensor technology (an accelerometer) into a known device (an HMD) to perform its ordinary function of orientation tracking.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in a very early stage, with claim construction proceedings ongoing and a trial date scheduled more than eighteen months in the future. Petitioner also asserted that none of the prior art relied upon in the petition was cited or identified during the original prosecution, making discretionary denial under §325(d) inapplicable.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of the ’493 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.