Video Game Patent Found to be Patent Eligible

In the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Plaintiff (Blackbird) sued Defendant (Niantic) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,802,127.  Niantic filed the present motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), on the basis that the asserted patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Court followed the two-step approach set forth by Alice to evaluate the section 101 challenge, and ultimately found the claims satisfied step 1 (leaving step 2 unnecessary), and thus, the motion was denied.

The '127 patent is directed to a video game in which user determined location information (e.g. GPS, Google Maps, an entered address or the like) is acquired, and the determined location information of a physical location is mapped to a video game environment so that the user of the video game experiences objects from the user's physical location while playing the video game.

The '127 patent describes an example in which if a user is playing a car racing game, he or she is able to race through the streets of his or her local neighborhood in the game.  This is achieved by first obtaining user determined location information relating to a user's location.  In a particular example, the user is able to load information relating to the user's current physical location.  This may be accomplished by taking a GPS reading of the user's current physical location and a certain radius around the user location or by the user entering an address.  Other sources of user determined location information relating to the users physical location, such as Google Maps, may also be used to acquire a set of user determined location information to be mapped into the video game.  Once acquired, the information is mapped into the game.  In this example, if the user is at a residence at 1 Sarah Lane in Maynard, MA, user determined location information relating to Sarah Lane and the town of Maynard, MA is acquired (via GPS, Google Map®, Google Earth® and the like).  The user determined location information is mapped into the video game such that the user can race around the streets of Maynard, MA.  In the game, the user can leave the residence at 1 Sarah Lane, turn onto Route 117 and race to downtown Maynard.  Upon entering the downtown area the user is able to race around the town, passing local points of interest such as Clock Tower Place, local fast food places (e.g., McDonalds®), past local stores (e.g., The Outdoor Store®) and onto Route 62.  By allowing the user to experience his or her desired location in the video game, an entirely new and entertaining form of game playing is achieved.

Claim 1 of the '127 patent recites:

1.  A computer-implemented method comprising:
    receiving a first position indicator representing a first current physical location for a user of a video game, wherein said first position indicator is determined at least in part by taking a global navigation satellite system reading of said first current physical location;
    obtaining image data relating to said first current physical location, said image data comprising two or more camera images of said first current physical location;
    mapping said image data into a virtual environment of said video game by displaying said image data as a video, wherein said user experiences within said virtual environment real life objects from said first current physical location, and said user simultaneously encounters within said virtual environment virtual objects that are not physically present in said first current physical location;
    receiving a second position indicator representing a second current physical location for said user as said user navigates a geographic area surrounding said first current physical location;
    saving at least said second position indicator to a memory; and
    storing at least said second position indicator in said memory when said video game is not executing.

In the motion to dismiss, the Defendant argued that the '127 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of "receiving, processing, and displaying or storing location information."  The Defendant analogized the asserted claims to the method claim in Concaten, Inc. v. Ameritrack Fleet Solutions, LLC, which was found invalid under § 101.  The Concaten claim provided steps for relaying weather and road data to and from snowplows, comprising: (1) "receiving" information on a snowplow's physical location, and the weather and road conditions in that area; (2) "processing" the information to provide a map and determine an instruction for the snowplow operator; and (3) "providing" the map and instruction to the operator.  The claim further required that the map be "visually displayed, by a touch screen monitor," and that specific conditions be included in the instruction.

The Defendant argued that the '127 patent claims are directed to an abstract concept because they merely describe the idea of receiving, processing, and displaying location information in the context of a video game virtual environment using generic computer components, and are therefore, invalid for the same reasons as noted in Concaten.

The Court, however, found that the Defendant was oversimplifying the claims.  Under the Alice framework, courts must be wary of describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims lest the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.

The Court found the Concaten claim distinguishable from the '127 patent claims.  The Court explained that the Defendant forced the analogy by essentially reading out the '127 patent's "mapping" limitation, which requires taking camera images of a real physical space where the user is located, and integrating those images as a video into a virtual video game environment.

The Court explained that such mapping ensures that the claimed method does not merely take steps routinely performed by humans and apply them on a computer because "mapping" as described in the claims could not be performed by humans.  Further, unlike the abstract optimization step done by unexplained "processing" step in Concaten, the mapping step here is tethered to specific instructions on which images are to be mapped (camera images from the user's physical location), where those images are to be mapped (the video game virtual environment), and how those images are to be displayed (as a video wherein the user experiences both real and virtual objects within the video game virtual environment).

The Court noted that Defendant argued that claim 1 includes an insufficient level of detail as the claims fail to explain how the image data is displayed as a video and how the images are allegedly combined, but such an enablement argument is beyond the scope of § 101.

The Court further rejected Defendant's arguments regarding the idea that the "wherein" clause in the mapping limitation merely described an outcome and thus was an aspirational and result-focused claim lacking specificity.  Again, the Court found that claim 1 provides specific instructions on how the mapping is done.  The Court cited McRO, and found the '127 patent claims, like the claims in McRO, to be directed to a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.  Namely, the claimed technology allegedly solves the problem in the existing art of being confined to a predetermined and merely virtual location in a video game by incorporating a user's physical location as part of the game environment.  This is done by the specific means of first taking camera images of the user's physical location, and then mapping those images as a video into the virtual game environment.

Also, the Court found that the asserted claims, like in McRO, are directed to the creation of something physical, here, the display of camera images depicting the user's location overlaid with the virtual images from the video game for viewing by human eyes.

As a result, the Court found that the '127 patent claims are not directed to ineligible subject matter under Alice step one, and Alice step two was not needed.  Thus, the motion to dismiss was denied.

Here, the Court found that the claim included sufficient detail to avoid being considered a result-oriented claim.  Although the "mapping" limitation is awkwardly worded (and appears to have some antecedent basis issues), it does include descriptive or non-generic terms to avoid the abstract characterization.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Niantic, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)
Memorandum Order by District Judge Andrews