throbber
Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 45
`
`Matthew K. Blackburn (SBN 261959)
`mblackburn@diamondmccarthy.com
`DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP
`150 California Street Suite 2200
`San Francisco, California 94111
`T: 415.692.5200 ‖ F: 415.263.9200
`
`Allan B. Diamond (pro hac vice to be filed)
`adiamond@diamondmccarthy.com
`John Sample (pro hac vice to be filed)
`john.sample@diamondmccarthy.com
`DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP
`909 Fannin Street, 37th Floor
`Houston, Texas 77010
`T: 713.333.5100 ‖ F: 713.333.5199
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`NANTWORKS, LLC and
`NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NANTWORKS, LLC, and NANT
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06262
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`NIANTIC, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs NantWorks, LLC (“NantWorks”) and Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`(“Nant IP”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs ”), by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this
`action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against defendant Niantic, Inc.
`(“Niantic” or “Defendant”) alleging, based upon personal knowledge with respect to
`themselves and their own acts and on information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a civil action by plaintiffs NantWorks and Nant IP against
`1.
`defendant Niantic to stop its infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,403,051 (the
`“’051 Patent”), 10,614,477 (the “’477 Patent”), and 10,664,518 (the “’518 Patent”)
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), which claim groundbreaking augmented reality
`(“AR”) and gaming systems and methods for using them.
`Plaintiffs develop various technologies to advance healthcare,
`2.
`commerce, and digital entertainment. NantWorks founder, Dr. Patrick Soon - Shiong, comes
`from a medical background, and has pioneered revolutionary new therapies for both cancer
`and diabetes by combining medical, engineering, and other disciplines. He is passionate
`about the innovative potential of converging disparate technologies and creative talents, and
`his inventions have been recognized by the issuance of hundreds of patents worldwide
`ranging from breakthrough cancer therapies to mobile location - based services. Dr. Soon -
` Shiong also is an avid investor in entrepreneurial companies with game - changing
`technologies in the fields of healthcare, education, science, and technology.
`Through multiyear efforts, involving investments of tens of millions of
`3.
`dollars and the work of dozens of employees, Plaintiffs have developed a wide array of
`proprietary intellectual property relating to digital entertainment, including AR. As
`innovators, Plaintiffs safeguard their valuable intellectual property and have patented the
`cutting - edge features of their AR, image recognition, and gaming technologies that make
`digital entertainment products useful, efficient, and engaging for the end - user, including the
`Asserted Patents.
`Defendant Niantic directly infringes the Asserted Patents by making,
`4.
`using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States and/or importing into the United
`States AR games (including its Pokémon Go Application (“Pokémon Go App”) and its
`Harry Potter Application (“Harry Potter App”)). When these AR games are downloaded
`onto mobile devices, permitted to interact with backend servers, and used by Niantic, its
`employees, or its agents, these games practice the inventions claimed in one or more claims
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`of each of the Asserted Patents, as detailed below.
`Defendant Niantic also indirectly infringes the Asserted Patents by
`5.
`inducing its customers and/or consumer end - users to directly infringe the Asserted Patents.
`Niantic induces infringement by providing AR games, including its Pokémon Go App and
`its Harry Potter App, that when downloaded onto mobile devices, which devices are
`permitted to interact with backend servers, and used by customers and/or consumer end -
` users for AR gaming, as directed and intended by Niantic, cause those customers and/or
`end - users to practice the inventions claimed in one or more claims of the Asserted Patents,
`as detailed below.
`Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Niantic’s free - riding on their patented
`6.
`technologies, and they seek damages and other relief for Niantic’s infringement of the
`Asserted Patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff NantWorks, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`7.
`with its principal place of business located at 9920 Jefferson Boulevard, Culver City,
`California 90232. NantWorks is the exclusive licensee of patents covering digital
`entertainment (such as AR and gaming technologies), including the Asserted Patents.
`Plaintiff Nant Holdings IP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`8.
`company with its principal place of business located at 9920 Jefferson Boulevard, Culver
`City, California 90232. Nant IP owns patents covering digital entertainment (such as AR
`and gaming technologies), including the Asserted Patents.
`Defendant Niantic, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`9.
`place of business located at 2 Bryant Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, California 94105.
`Niantic maintains offices in San Francisco, California, operates and owns the websites
`located at www.nianticlabs.com and niantic.helpshift.com, and markets, offers, and
`distributes throughout the United States (including in California and within this District) AR
`gaming applications, including the Pokémon Go App and the Harry Potter App, that
`infringe the Asserted Patents as set out herein.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`10. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter
`jurisdiction over this Complaint and the matters asserted herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`and 1338(a).
`
`11. This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over
`Niantic, who has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`jurisdiction over Niantic would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`justice. Niantic is registered to do business in the State of California (Registration
`No. C3815285). Niantic maintains regular and established places of business in California,
`including its principal place of business in this District, and conducts continuous and
`systematic business in California, including in this District and elsewhere in California. In
`addition, Niantic has committed, and continues to commit, acts that infringe the Asserted
`Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 in California (including in this District) by, among
`other things, making, using, testing, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing products and
`services that infringe the Asserted Patents, as set forth herein. In conducting business in
`California and in this District, Niantic derives substantial revenue from the infringing
`products being used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported in California and this District.
`These acts by Niantic have caused injury to Plaintiffs in California, including in this
`District.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b),
`at least because Niantic has committed and continues to commit acts of direct and indirect
`patent infringement in this District giving rise to this action, regularly conducts business in
`this District, has a regular and established place of business in this District and employs
`engineers and/or other personnel within this District, including at its principal place of
`business in San Francisco, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`13. This is an intellectual property action to be assigned on a district - wide
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`basis under Civil Local Rule 3 - 2(c).
`
`BACKGROUND
`NantWorks’ Innovation
`14. Although the potential of digital entertainment (including AR and
`gaming) was clear by 2011, developers faced daunting technical challenges in trying to
`incorporate these technologies into mobile devices. Digital entertainment products had to
`deliver on the promise of a fun and engaging experience at speeds and with a visual quality
`that was unknown at that time in mobile devices.
`15. That same year NantWorks was founded and invested in Fourth Wall
`Studios, a Culver City, California - based company, to develop immersive storytelling
`techniques for gaming. This began a four - year effort toward developing original digital
`entertainment content to enable interaction with fictional worlds using mobile devices,
`browsers, and even social networks.
`16. Nantworks’ engineers initially began conceptualizing an AR game,
`which they would later call “Scavenger Hunt,” and by December 2012 they had a fully 
`operational application which allowed teams of Nantworks’ employees to use their mobile
`devices and search for AR objects around the company’s office during a NantWorks’
`holiday party.
`
`17. By 2013, Nantworks’ AR technologies had caught the attention of
`Jakks Pacific (a leading toy and consumer products company), which partnered with
`Nantworks to develop AR toys using Nantworks’ groundbreaking image recognition
`technology to allow children to interact with associated AR characters using their mobile
`device’s camera:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disneytoys/disney-joins-jakks-la-billionaire-to-bring-
`toys-to-life-idUSBRE9070CU20130108.
`18. These early successes tangibly demonstrated AR’s promise in many
`contexts (including not just gaming, but also in - store product promotion and even
`medicine). However, providing realistic AR on mobile devices has proven to be very
`difficult. Existing mobile platforms required development of proprietary intellectual
`property, which led to the ’051 Patent and the ’518 Patent. Efforts to develop AR - based
`games led to development of other proprietary intellectual property, including the
`’477 Patent.
`
`19. Nant IP solely owns the Asserted Patents, and NantWorks is the
`exclusive licensee of the Asserted Patents (with the full and exclusive rights to bring suit to
`enforce the Asserted Patents), each of which is described below.
`
`NantWorks’ ’051 Patent
`20. U.S. Patent No. 10,403,051, entitled “Interference based augmented
`reality hosting platforms,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S Patent and Trademark
`Office on September 3, 2019. A true and correct copy of the ’051 Patent is attached as
`Exhibit A. The ’051 Patent identifies Patrick Soon - Shiong as the inventor. The patent
`application from which the ’051 Patent issued was filed on November 9, 2018. The
`’051 Patent claims priority through a series of applications to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional
`Appl. No. 61/473,324, filed April 8, 2011.
`21. The ’051 Patent explains that AR “represents a presentation of virtual
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`objects along side real - world elements.” See, e.g., ’051 Patent, 1/32 - 33. In one prior AR
`system, users were given access to multiple, distinct, and separate AR layers, and users had
`to manually select which layer of AR content to see. See, e.g., id., 1/53 - 61. The ’051 Patent
`explains that “users should be able to seamlessly access or interact with [AR] content as
`naturally as they would interact with real - world elements.” See, e.g., id., 1/63 - 67.
`22. Then, the ’051 Patent explains that “[s]ome progress had been made
`towards creating a seamless integration between user and augmented reality environments.”
`See, e.g., id., 2/1 - 3. After introducing several existing AR systems that allow some AR
`content contextualization, the ’051 Patent notes that these systems “fail to appreciate that
`objects within an environment or scene can interfere with each other to give rise to an
`augmented reality experience.” See, e.g., id., 2/3 - 29; see also id., 2/37 - 41.
`23. Also, “existing infrastructures fail to treat [AR] objects as distinct
`manageable objects in an infrastructure agonistic [sic agnostic ] manner… .” See, e.g., id.,
`3/8 - 11. Without the ability provided by the ’051 Patent, certain AR objects would always
`appear on top of all other AR objects and could not appear to go behind any other AR
`objects. For example, a gaming avatar (an AR object that is always visible) would not be
`able to go behind or around other AR objects.
`24. As AR objects proliferate, “individuals still require presentation of
`relevant [AR] content especially when features, real or virtual, of an [AR] can interfere with
`each other.” See, e.g., id., 3/15 - 20.
`25. The claims of the ’051 Patent are directed to technological
`improvements in delivering a realistic AR experience with AR objects within an
`environment or scene that can interfere with each other. The claims of the ’051 Patent relate
`to particular solutions that provide AR objects within an environment or scene that can
`interfere with each other. The ’051 Patent, for example, discloses the use of at least one
`context related to the AR capable device and pertinent to the environment based at least on
`device location, identifying relevant AR objects representing available AR objects
`corresponding to the at least one context, and determining whether to alter presence of a
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`relevant AR object based on at least the device location and the virtual element attribute.
`See, e.g., id., 3/43 - 52; see also id,. 21/47 - 22/2. “Augmented reality context can now be
`used to determine how elements in a scene, a location relevant to an individual, can interfere
`with each other to give rise to relevant [AR] experiences.” See, e.g., id., 3/49 - 52; see also
`id,. 3/30 - 34.
`
`26. As the ’051 Patent explains, relevant AR objects can have an altered
`presence due to interference among elements within a scene. See, e.g., id., 17/63 - 66. The
`nature of relevant AR objects, the context, and other factors relating to the scene can trigger
`enhanced or suppressed presence. See, e.g., id., 18/18 - 21; see also id., 18/42 - 45. For
`example, Figure 4 of the ’051 Patent shows that an AR object can be either an enhanced
`presence (reference numeral 446A below) or a suppressed presence (reference numeral
`446B below):
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`The technology of the ’051 Patent enables this type of interaction as well as others, allowing
`a much more compelling AR experience.
`27. Exemplary claim 1 of the ’051 Patent, for example, reads as follows:
`1. An augmented reality (AR) platform system comprising:
`
`an AR object repository storing available AR objects in a first
`
`non - transitory computer readable memory; and
`
`an AR server coupled with the AR object repository and,
`
`upon execution of software instructions stored in a second non -
`
` transitory computer readable memory by a processor, is
`
`configured to:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`obtain digital data representative of an environment of an AR
`
`capable mobile device, the digital data including a device
`
`location of the AR capable device and a virtual element
`
`attribute;
`
`determine at least one context related to the AR capable device
`
`and pertinent to the environment based at least on the device
`
`location;
`
`identify relevant AR objects from the AR object repository
`
`representing available AR objects corresponding to the at least
`
`one context;
`
`determine whether to alter presence of a relevant AR object
`
`based on at least the device location and the virtual element
`
`attribute; and
`
`cause the AR capable device to render the relevant AR object
`
`according to its altered presence.
`(Id., 21/47 - 22/2).
`28. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`examiner, the best prior art was U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0017722 to Cohen
`(“Cohen”), which disclosed an AR gaming platform. ’051 Patent File History, Notice of
`Allowance, April 10, 2019, at 2 – 3. However, Cohen lacked several claimed features of the
`’051 Patent, including among other features, “determin[ing] whether to alter presence of a
`relevant AR object based on at least the device location and a virtual element attribute” and
`“caus[ing] the AR capable device to render the relevant AR object according to its altered
`presence.” Id. at 3 – 4.
`29. AR platform systems that determined whether to alter presence of a
`relevant AR object based on at least the device location and the virtual element attribute
`were not common or conventional at the time of the ’051 Patent.
`30. The inventor of the ’051 Patent recognized that prior AR systems
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`failed to deliver an experience with objects within an environment or scene that can
`interfere with each other to give rise to an AR experience. To the contrary, existing AR
`systems sought to avoid interference among elements of the augmented reality by simply
`forcing individuals to select which features to experience. See, e.g., ’051 Patent, 3/25 - 27.
`Also, interference among elements was not managed according to the properties or
`attributes of the specific AR elements. See, e.g. ,id., 3/27 - 29.
`31. As taught by the ’051 Patent, the disclosed invention determines
`whether to alter presence of a relevant AR object based on at least the device location and
`the virtual element attribute. See, e.g. ,id., Abstract, and 5/36 - 44.
`32. Given the state of the art at the time of the invention of the
`’051 Patent, the inventive concepts of the ’051 Patent were not conventional, well -
` understood, or routine. The ’051 Patent discloses, among other things, an unconventional
`and technological solution to an issue arising specifically in the context of AR capable
`devices, and the delivery of AR content to such devices. The solution implemented by the
`’051 Patent provides a specific and substantial improvement over prior AR systems,
`resulting in an improved system for the delivery of AR to end - users. The ’051 Patent
`achieves this result by determining at least one context related to the AR capable device and
`pertinent to the environment based at least on the device’s location; identifying relevant AR
`objects from the AR object repository representing available AR objects corresponding to
`the at least one context; and determining whether to alter presence of a relevant AR object
`based on at least the device location and the virtual element attribute. See, e.g., id., Abstract
`and 21/59 - 67.
`
`33. Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in providing AR
`for AR capable devices, the ’051 Patent’s solutions also are rooted in that same technology
`that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This technical context is
`reflected in the ’051 Patent’s claims. For example, claim 1 recites “an AR object repository
`storing available AR objects in a first non - transitory computer readable memory,” “an AR
`server coupled with the AR object repository,” and “an AR capable mobile device.” See id.,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`21/49 - 56.
`
`34. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions
`of the ’051 Patent would not have understood how the inventions could or would be
`performed solely using pen and paper or in the human mind. Using pen and paper would
`ignore the stated purpose of the ’051 Patent of providing AR content to an AR capable
`mobile device and the problem it was specifically designed to address, which arose in the
`context of needing an improved system and method for delivering AR content to mobile
`devices. Doing so would also run counter to the inventor’s detailed description of the
`inventions and the length of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`NantWorks’ ’477 Patent
`35. U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477, entitled “Subscription bill service,
`systems and methods,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S Patent and Trademark Office
`on April 7, 2020. A true and correct copy of the ’477 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. The
`’477 Patent identifies Patrick Soon - Shiong as the inventor. The patent application from
`which the ’477 Patent issued was filed on May 24, 2019. The’477 Patent claims priority
`through a series of applications to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 61/562,385, filed
`November 21, 2011.
`36. The claims of the ’477 Patent are directed to technological
`improvements in in - game transaction infrastructure technologies. See, e.g., ’477 Patent,
`1/26 - 27. The ’477 Patent explains that “existing transaction systems provide a single
`provider the ability to conduct a transaction with a single user” and “lack the ability to
`offer … consumers a system that can reconcile aspects of a transaction among multiple …
`user accounts.” See, e.g., id., 1/38 - 43, 1/62 - 64, and 1/67 - 2/2. Also, “existing transaction
`systems apparently fail to reconcile aspects of a transaction based at least in part on derived
`object attributes.” See, e.g., id., 1/64 - 67.
`37. The claims of the ’477 Patent disclose particular solutions to the
`technical problem of facilitating in - game transactions between two players. The
`’477 Patent, for example, discloses the use of determining, within a computer game, at least
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`one object attribute based on physical location data associated with a first player whose
`physical location has been acquired by a location sensor, determining transaction amounts
`of game points the accounts of two players based on a reconciliation matrix and the at least
`one object attribute based on the physical location data, and reconciling a game transaction,
`when a criterion based on the physical location data of the first player is met within the
`computer game, among the first account and the second account in accordance with the
`determined transaction amounts.
`38. Exemplary claim 20 of the ’477 Patent, for example, reads as follows:
`20. A reconciliation system, comprising:
`
`at least one processor communicatively coupled with at least
`
`one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at
`
`least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
`
`determine, within a computer game, at least one object
`
`attribute based on physical location data associated with a first
`
`player whose physical location has been acquired by a location
`
`sensor;
`
`determine transaction amounts of game points for a first
`
`account of the first player and a second account of a second
`
`player, the transaction amounts being determined based on a
`
`reconciliation matrix and the at least one object attribute
`
`based on the physical location data; and
`
`cause reconciliation of a game transaction, when a criterion
`
`based on the physical location data of the first player is met
`
`within the computer game, among the first account and the
`
`second account in accordance with the determined transaction
`
`amounts,
`
`wherein the game transaction comprises a first transfer of at
`
`least a first amount of game points associated with the first
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`account based on at least a portion of the transaction
`
`attributed to a first entity associated with the first account and
`
`a second transfer of at least a second amount of game points
`
`associated with the second account based on at least a portion
`
`of the transaction attributed to a second entity associated with
`
`the second account.
`(Id., 34/1 - 27).
`39. According to the USPTO examiner, the claims of the ’477 Patent
`issued because, among other reasons, the prior art fails to teach the reconciliation step when
`a criterion based on the physical location data of the first player is met within the computer
`game. ’477 Patent File History, Notice of Allowance, November 14, 2019, at 4.
`40. Determining transaction amounts of game points based on a
`reconciliation matrix and the at least one object attribute based on the physical location data
`and then reconciling a game transaction, when a criterion based on the physical location
`data of the first player is met within the computer game was not common or conventional at
`the time of the ’477 Patent.
`41. The inventor of the ’477 Patent recognized that prior transaction
`infrastructure technologies were ill - suited for on - line transactions because they only
`allowed a single provider the ability to conduct a transaction with a single user and lacked
`the ability to offer providers or consumers a system that can reconcile aspects of a
`transaction among multiple providers or user accounts.
`42. Given the state of the art at the time of the inventions of the
`’477 Patent, the inventive concepts of the ’477 Patent were not conventional, well -
` understood, or routine. The ’477 Patent discloses, among other things, an unconventional
`and technological solution to an issue arising specifically in the context of computer
`gaming, and the ability of two players of the computer game to reconcile a transaction
`between themselves. The solution implemented by the ’477 Patent provides a specific and
`substantial improvement over prior systems used for this purpose, resulting in an improved
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`system for reconciling in - game transactions between two players using mobile devices.
`Rather than relying on one - dimensional transaction systems that provide a set transactional
`price or value for a specific object, the ’477 Patent inventor introduced the use of location
`and context to the process of reconciling in - game transactions in order to enhance the game
`experience. The ’477 Patent achieves this result by reconciling a game transaction when a
`criterion based on the physical location data of the first player is met within the computer
`game. See, e.g., ’477 Patent, 31/51 - 53.
`43. Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in computer
`gaming, the ’477 Patent’s solutions also are rooted in that same technology that cannot be
`performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This technical context is reflected in
`the ’477 Patent’s claims. For example, the claims recite “determin[ing], within a computer
`game, at least one object attribute based on physical location data associated with a first
`player whose physical location has been acquired by a location sensor,” “determin[ing]
`transaction amounts of game points for a first account of the first player and a second
`account of a second player, the transaction amounts being determined based on a
`reconciliation matrix and the at least one object attribute based on the physical location
`data,” and “caus[ing] reconciliation of a game transaction, when a criterion based on the
`physical location data of the first player is met within the computer game, among the first
`account and the second account in accordance with the determined transaction amounts.”
`See, e.g., id., 34/6 - 20.
`44. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions
`of the ’477 Patent would not have understood how the inventions could or would be
`performed solely using pen and paper or in the human mind. Using pen and paper would
`ignore the stated purpose of the ’477 Patent of reconciling transactions within a computer
`game and the problem it was specifically designed to address, which arose in the context of
`needing an improved system and method for reconciling in - game transactions between two
`players. Doing so would also run counter to the inventor’s detailed description of the
`inventions and the length of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06262-LB Document 1 Filed 09/03/20 Page 16 of 45
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NantWorks’ ’518 Patent
`45. U.S. Patent No. 10,664,518, entitled “Wide Area Augmented Reality
`Location - Based Services,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S Patent and Trademark
`Office on May 26, 2020. A true and correct copy of the ’518 Patent is attached as Exhibit
`C. The ’518 Patent identifies David McKinnon, Kamil Wnuk, Jeremi Sudol, Matheen
`Siddiqui, John Wiacek, Bing Song, and Nicholas J. Witchey as the inventors. The patent
`application from which the ’518 Patent issued was filed on October 26, 2017. The ’518
`Patent claims priority through a series of applications to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Appl.
`No. 61/892,238, filed October 17, 2013.
`46.
`The claims of the ’518 Patent are directed to improved AR service
`technologies. See, e.g., ’518 Patent, 1/15 - 16. The ’518 Patent explains, with the
`popularization of AR, attempts had been made to employ object recognition and location
`tracking. See, e.g., id., 1/26 - 31. One prior art system “schedule[s] content distribution to a
`mobile device by storing different locations, collecting user location data over a period of
`time, collecting wireless signal strength data, and scheduling pre - caching of content to the
`device if the user is predicted to be at a location with poor signal strength.” See, e.g., id.,
`1/48 - 55.
`
`47. However, these known references “fail to consider that areas have
`various views of interest, and fail to differentiate between sub - areas based on AR content
`densities.” See, e.g., id., 2/1 - 5. Existing location - based AR systems “fail to contemplate
`segmenting an area into clusters based on what is viewable or what AR content is
`available.” See, e.g., id., 2/5 - 8.
`48.
`The ’518 Patent discloses particular solutions to the technical problem
`of providing AR content to mobile devices. The ’518 Patent, for example, explains that “a
`device (e.g., a mobile device, a kiosk, a tablet, a cell phone, a laptop, a watch, a vehicle, a
`server, a computer, etc.)” is configured “to obtain at least a portion of the subset based on
`the tile map (e.g., based on the device'

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket