Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00746
• Patent #: 10,974,151
• Filed: April 5, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): 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 discloses a reality-based video game where a user's physical location is reflected in the virtual location of their game character. The system is designed for location-enabled devices like wireless telephones and may include characters controlled by artificial intelligence.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner asserted a single ground for unpatentability in its petition for inter partes review (IPR), arguing that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Ground 1: Obviousness over Levine - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Levine.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Levine (Application # 2003/0177187).
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Levine, a single prior art reference, discloses a location-based, online multi-player gaming system with features that are strikingly similar to those claimed in the ’151 patent. Petitioner contended that Levine teaches or renders obvious every element of challenged claims 1-3.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Levine discloses a system for multi-player online games that accounts for both the physical and virtual locations of users, thereby teaching a "location-based video game." The petition mapped the specific limitations of the claims as follows:
    • Claim 1[a], [g], [h]: For the required "wireless telephone having a locating device and a display," Petitioner pointed to Levine’s disclosure of games playable on a "mobile phone" (client device 112a). This mobile phone was described as including a display and a "locating device" in the form of an "orientationally-aware peripheral" (OAP). Petitioner argued this OAP provides the "first location-based control signals" and satisfies the limitation that the locating device includes an "accelerometer," as Levine’s OAP explicitly "employs six accelerometers" for inertial tracking.
    • Claim 1[b], [c], [e]: For the game being "operable to be played" on the phone, controlling a "character" that is "displayed," Petitioner relied on Levine’s detailed examples of a "monster" game and a "sniper" game. In these examples, a user’s physical movements, tracked by the OAP, control the location and actions of their in-game avatar. Levine further illustrates the display of these game characters on the user's device, such as a sniper character shown on a Palm Pilot display.
    • Claim 1[d]: For a "manual control" to perform an "action," Petitioner cited Levine’s description of players using "buttons and menus" and "pushing buttons and twitching joysticks." Levine provides a specific example where a mobile user can press "*9999" on their phone to perform the action of killing a "monster" character in the game.
    • Claim 1[f]: For a "second video game character...controlled via artificial intelligence," Petitioner argued that Levine’s disclosure of Non-Player Characters (NPCs) meets this limitation. Levine described these NPCs as "Active Objects" that are "not directly controlled by users" but instead operate based on their own logic or artificial intelligence. These NPCs, such as a "Dragon or a Troll" or the "monster" character, are also rendered and displayed on user devices.
    • Claim 2: For a "second locating device that includes a positioning device," Petitioner presented two theories based on Levine. First, Levine’s system supports multiple client devices, each of which could contain an OAP (a locating/positioning device), thereby providing a second such device. Second, Levine discloses that the system can use a Global Positioning System (GPS) to track users, which itself constitutes a second type of locating and positioning device.
    • Claim 3: For a "directional device for determining direction," Petitioner argued that Levine's OAP, which uses accelerometers to track both position and orientation, inherently discloses this element. Levine stated that the OAP determines "which way this object is pointed in the game world," directly teaching the claimed function.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv (§314(a)) would be inappropriate. It asserted that there is no parallel litigation involving the ’151 patent, as the patent was dismissed with prejudice from the co-pending district court case against Petitioner. Petitioner also noted the district court case is in an early stage and represented that it would not pursue any invalidity defense in litigation that was or could have been raised in the IPR.
• Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is not warranted because the sole prior art reference, Levine, was not cited or otherwise considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’151 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-3 of Patent 10,974,151 as unpatentable.