IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Dismissal granted in video game system patent dispute, (Sep 10, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims relating to video game functions such as an online marketplace or making changes to the game based on the user’s geographic location were invalid for being directed at abstract ideas, using generic computer components to conduct longstanding human activities.

A seller of video games was entitled to dismissal of several patent claims asserted against it, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. The asserted claims relating to video game functions such as an online marketplace or making changes to the game based on the user’s geographic location were directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas and used only functional, results-oriented language without describing how the claimed functions could be achieved (ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2025)).

ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. (collectively, IAR) were the owner and licensee, respectively, of numerous patents related to video game features. IAR brought suit for infringement against Niantic, Inc. (Niantic), alleging that Niantic’s products, which included the video games Pokemon GO, Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Skatrix, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, infringed on ImagineAR’s patents. Niantic moved to dismiss claims arising under U.S. Patents Nos. 8,579,710 (the ’710 patent), 8,777,746 (the ’746 patent), and 8,668,592 (the ’592 patent) on the ground that each of these three patents was invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and moved to dismiss the pre-suit damages claims for indirect and willful infringement of the remaining patents.

Abstract idea. The three patents at issue concerned a system for trading virtual goods, a system for using touch screen commands in a virtual game environment, and a system for tailoring game content based on the player’s geographic location. On step one of the Alice test, the court found that each of these claims used functional, results-oriented language, and either carried out longstanding human activities or failed to describe how the claimed function could be achieved. Turning to step two of the Alice test, the court found that IAR alleged an inventive concept only in a conclusory fashion or pointed out that claim construction and discovery were not yet complete, neither of which were sufficient to show an inventive concept beyond the abstract ideas.

Pre-suit knowledge. With regard to U.S. Patents Nos. 10,946,284 (the ’284 patent), 11,484,797 (the ’797 patent), 11,666,827 (the ’827 patent), and 12,070,691 (the ’691 patent), the court found that IAR had failed to allege pre-suit knowledge of the alleged infringement. At best, IAR had alleged that Niantic could have acquired pre-suit knowledge of the ’284 patent through a joint venture with Nintendo, after which Nintendo had cited the’284 patent in prosecution of its own patent application. Even if this allegation were held to be plausible, knowledge of the existence of the patent alone was not sufficient without knowledge of infringement of that patent.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the three patents challenged on invalidity grounds, and the pre-suit damages claims for the remaining patents.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW.

Judge: Wolson, J.

Attorneys: Renee Mosley Delcollo (Greenberg Traurig, P.A.) for ImagineAR, Inc. Kelly E. Farnan (Richards, Layton & Finger, PA) for Niantic, Inc. d/b/a Niantic Labs.

Companies: ImagineAR, Inc.; Niantic, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet DelawareNews