Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00745
• Patent #: 9,662,582
• Filed: April 5, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mullen Industries LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 11, and 13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Location Based Games and Employment of the Same on Location Enabled Devices
• Brief Description: The ’582 patent relates to a reality-based video game wherein a user's physical location, tracked by a location-enabled device, is mirrored by a virtual character's location and interactions within a digital game environment. The technology integrates real-world movement with gameplay, including interactions with other player-controlled or AI-controlled characters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 are obvious over Levine.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Levine (Application # 2003/0177187).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Levine, which teaches a system for bridging real and virtual environments for multi-user gaming, discloses or renders obvious every limitation of the challenged claims.
    • Independent Claim 1: Petitioner asserted that Levine’s system for multi-player online games that "accounts for both the physical and virtual location" of participants constitutes a "location-based game." Levine’s "Locales" form a "virtual playfield" that can correspond to real-world locations. Player-controlled "Avatars" meet the limitations of a "first character," whose location is displayed on-screen and determined by a control signal from a "first locating device." Petitioner identified this locating device as Levine's Orientationally-Aware Peripheral (OAP), which uses inertial tracking via accelerometers to determine a user's physical position. Levine’s AI-controlled "Non-Player Characters" (NPCs) or "Active Objects" were argued to be a "second character" that utilizes the first character's location data (the control signal from the OAP) for its own behavior, such as sounding a proximity alarm when a player's Avatar approaches. Finally, Petitioner contended that Levine's disclosure of passive objects like walls or rubble, with which a character can "collide," meets the "impenetrable object" limitation, where the character is "impacted" upon contact.
    • Independent Claim 2: This claim adds the requirement that the display and locating device be part of a "portable device." Petitioner argued that Levine explicitly teaches the use of its system on various portable devices, including mobile phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), and provides an illustrative example of gameplay on a Palm Pilot device.
    • Dependent Claims 11 and 13: These claims further require that the "first locating device" comprises an "accelerometer." Petitioner asserted that Levine's OAP is expressly disclosed as employing six accelerometers to perform its inertial tracking function.
  • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the motivation focused on applying Levine's various teachings within its own disclosed gaming framework. Petitioner argued a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would find it a matter of routine design to implement Levine's disclosed features—such as AI-controlled NPCs and impenetrable objects—within the specific location-based game examples Levine provides (e.g., its "monster" and "sniper" games).
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing the claimed invention using Levine’s teachings. This is because Levine provides a detailed system architecture, describes all the necessary functional components, and explains how they interoperate to create a location-based gaming experience.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors, stating that the parallel district court litigation involving the ’582 patent was dismissed with prejudice as to the Petitioner. It was further argued that any remaining litigation involving related patents is at a very early stage, with a trial date far in the future, thus minimizing concerns of inefficiency or conflicting decisions. Petitioner also asserted that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is unwarranted because the sole prior art reference, Levine, was never cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’582 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 of Patent 9,662,582 as unpatentable.