Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00742
• Patent #: 11,904,243
• Filed: April 5, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 6-10, 14, 17, 22, 24-28, 30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Location Based Games and Employment of the Same on Location Enabled Devices
• Brief Description: The ’243 patent describes a location-based gaming system using a portable, head-mounted device (HMD). The system provides an augmented reality experience where virtual game elements are displayed over a user's view of the real world, with gameplay influenced by the user's physical location and orientation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani - Claims 1, 6-8, 17, 24-28, and 30 are obvious over Levesque in view of Ronzani.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Levesque (Application # 2004/0110565) and Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Levesque disclosed a location-based augmented reality gaming system with a heads-up display, virtual characters, and location/orientation sensors. However, Levesque’s processing unit was separate from the HMD, typically mounted on a vehicle. Ronzani was cited for its teaching of fully self-contained HMDs that integrate all necessary components, including a CPU, memory, and various sensors (e.g., GPS, accelerometers), directly into the headset. Petitioner asserted that combining Ronzani’s self-contained HMD architecture with Levesque’s gaming system would render the key limitations of independent claim 1 obvious, such as placing the processing circuitry, memory, and locating devices within the HMD itself.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ronzani’s teachings with Levesque’s system to create a more portable and versatile device. The combination would untether the gaming experience from a specific vehicle, expanding its use cases to pedestrian activities and different vehicles. This modification was presented as a predictable design choice to improve a known device (Levesque’s) for a known purpose (portable entertainment) using a known technique (Ronzani’s integrated HMD).
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved integrating well-understood electronic components into a wearable device, a common practice in the field at the time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Levesque, Ronzani, and Fager - Claims 9, 10, and 22 are obvious over the combination of Levesque and Ronzani in further view of Fager.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Levesque (Application # 2004/0110565), Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), and Fager (Application # 2004/0104934).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Levesque/Ronzani combination by adding Fager. Petitioner argued Fager taught features missing from the primary combination. Specifically, Fager disclosed a method for automatically establishing default playfield dimensions for a location-based game by scanning the user's environment, addressing limitations in claims 9 and 10. For claim 22, Petitioner pointed to Fager’s disclosure of a physical controller (resembling a tennis racket handle) equipped with transducers to determine its position and orientation in six degrees of freedom, which provides control signals based on direction and pitch.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Fager's teachings to improve the user experience of the base Levesque/Ronzani system. Automatically setting default boundaries would save users time and effort during setup. Adding a direction-aware controller would enable more realistic and immersive gameplay for sports simulation games, a category of entertainment Levesque itself contemplated.
  • Expectation of Success: The integration of environmental scanning for boundary setup and the use of motion-sensing controllers were known techniques in the gaming and virtual reality fields, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Levesque, Ronzani, and Ohshima - Claim 14 is obvious over the combination of Levesque and Ronzani in further view of Ohshima.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Levesque (Application # 2004/0110565), Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), and Ohshima (Patent 6,951,515).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 14, which required processing circuitry to use control signals from first and second locating devices to control a computer-controlled virtual game character. While Levesque taught computer-controlled opponents, Petitioner argued Ohshima provided more specific teachings. Ohshima disclosed a mixed-reality game where computer-controlled characters react dynamically based on the real-world location, posture, and line-of-sight of the player. This directly mapped onto the claim’s requirement of using location and orientation signals to control an in-game character’s behavior.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would look to Ohshima to make the computer-controlled opponents in the Levesque/Ronzani system more intelligent and interactive. Making virtual characters react to the user's actual position and orientation would create a more realistic, challenging, and enjoyable game. This enhancement was presented as a logical next step to improve upon the basic "simulated reality" disclosed by Levesque.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing programming logic for character behavior based on sensor inputs was a well-established concept in video game design, ensuring a POSITA would expect the combination to work as intended.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. It asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with a trial date scheduled far in the future for October 2026. Furthermore, a pending motion to transfer venue could delay the trial even further, weighing against denial. Petitioner also noted that no references relied upon in the petition were cited during the patent's original prosecution, making discretionary denial under §325(d) inappropriate.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 6-10, 14, 17, 22, 24-28, and 30 of the ’243 patent as unpatentable.