Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00746](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746)
- Patent #: [10,974,151](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10974151)
- Filed: April 5, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Meta Platforms, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/meta-platforms-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Mullen Industries LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/mullen-industries-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-3

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Systems and Methods for Location Based Games and Employment of the Same on Location Enabled Devices
- Brief Description: The [’151 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1001) describes a reality-based video game where a user's physical location is reflected as a virtual character's location within the game environment. The system is designed for use on location-enabled portable devices, such as wireless telephones.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Levine (Application # 2003/0177187).
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** U.S. Patent Application Publication No. [2003/0177187](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00746/1003) to [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) et al. ([Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003), filed before the [’151 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1001)’s priority date, discloses a system for location-based, multi-user online gaming that renders all elements of the challenged claims obvious. For independent claim 1, Petitioner asserted that [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) teaches a system comprising a “wireless telephone” (disclosing a “mobile phone” as a client device) with a “locating device” and a “display.” [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s locating device is an orientationally-aware peripheral (OAP) that uses an inertial tracking subsystem with six accelerometers to determine position and orientation, satisfying the “locating device” and “accelerometer” limitations.
    - Petitioner contended that [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s system is for a “location-based video game” operable on the wireless telephone. [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) describes bridging real and virtual environments for multi-user gaming, where user location is integral to gameplay. [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) explicitly discloses that its games, such as the exemplary "monster" and "sniper" games, can be played on various client devices, including mobile phones.
    - The limitation requiring “first location-based control signals” to control a game character was argued to be met by [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s disclosure. [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s OAP generates position signals that are transmitted to other players and used to control the player’s avatar, such as by determining its position in the game and its visibility to others.
    - The “manual control” element was allegedly disclosed by [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s description of players using “buttons and menus” and “pushing buttons and twitching joysticks” to cause their characters to perform actions, such as shooting a monster.
    - Finally, Petitioner argued [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) teaches a “second video game character” controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) and not by manual input. [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) describes Non-Player Characters (NPCs) or "Active Objects" (e.g., a "Dragon or a Troll") that are not directly controlled by users but by a daemon controller using AI, have an "independent life of their own," and are displayed to players.
    - For dependent claims 2 and 3, Petitioner argued [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) renders them obvious. Claim 2’s “second locating device” is disclosed by [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s system supporting multiple client devices, each with its own OAP, or by its teaching of using GPS in addition to inertial tracking. Claim 3’s “directional device” is met by [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s OAP, which uses accelerometers to determine both position and orientation (i.e., direction).
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** As a single-reference ground, the motivation was presented as applying [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)'s own broad teachings. Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to implement the features of [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s exemplary games (e.g., the "sniper" game shown on a Palm Pilot) on any of the client devices [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) discloses, including a mobile phone. [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003)’s own teaching of cross-platform compatibility to ensure a consistent interface across different devices would have prompted a POSITA to make such an implementation.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) teaches a complete, integrated system where all the necessary components—location-aware mobile devices, AI-controlled characters, and location-based game logic—are explicitly described as working together.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on *Fintiv* factors is inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation involving the [’151 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1001) was dismissed with prejudice as to the Petitioner, meaning there is no ongoing parallel proceeding that could lead to duplicative efforts or inconsistent results.
- Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the [Levine](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1003) reference, which forms the entire basis for the petition, was not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the [’151 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1001).

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 of the [’151 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00746/doc/1001) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Meta challenges location-based game patent, arguing claims 1-3 are obvious over the Levine prior art's AI characters and accelerometer tracking.