Niantic – Patent Arcade

Feb

2022

U.S. Patent No. 11,007,429: Background process for importing real-world activity data into a location-based game

Issued May 18, 2021, to Niantic Inc.
Filed/Priority to June 26, 2019

This Niantic patent, likely related to games such as Pokémon GO, uses background processes to monitor real-world activity and trigger game events.

Overview:

U.S. Patent No. 11,007,429 (the ‘429 patent) relates to an interactive game application tracking user activity through the background process of an already installed activity application on a client device to trigger events in the game based on real world activity. The ‘429 patent details a computer program that identifies updated activity data describing real-world actions performed by a user, using a background process of an app on a user’s device. The app which the data is extracted from is an activity app already installed on the device which already has its own method of tracking activity data such as walking distance. In response to identifying such data is available, the app extracts at least some of the data and sends that data to the server that hosts the application. The app then receives a notification from the server indicating an event within the interactive application, which was triggered by some of the metrics of the extracted activity data. The data gathered can be statistics, including distances traveled, steps, and activity criteria like distance traveled in what amount of time. Niantic is the developer famously behind Pokémon GO, and the ‘429 patent could allow players of location-based games to trigger game events with physical activity without having the app open.

Abstract:

Events in an interactive application (e.g., a location-based parallel reality game) are triggered by a user’s real-world activity meeting one or more criteria. A background process executing on the user’s client device periodically extracts activity data from an activity monitoring application (e.g., a fitness application) and provides it to a server hosting the interactive application. The server determines whether received activity data triggers an event and, if so, sends a notification of the event to the client device.

Illustrative Claim:

A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable computer program that, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to perform operations comprising: identifying, via a background process of a client device, that updated activity data describing real-world actions performed by a user of the client device is available from an activity monitoring application of the client device, the updated activity data including one or more metrics derived from one or more sensors of the client device; responsive to identifying that the updated activity data is available, extracting at least some of the updated activity data from the activity monitoring application, the extracting including filtering the updated activity data to include a subset of the one or more metrics, the subset usable for completing an objective in an interactive application hosted by a server; sending, via a network, the extracted activity data to the server that hosts the interactive application; and receiving, from the server, a notification of a virtual event within the interactive application, wherein the virtual event was triggered responsive to the subset of the metrics of the extracted activity data achieving the objective.

Nov

2019

Places Where You Must Not Pokemon Go

In re Pokemon Go Nuisance Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed: February 14, 2019
Case No. 3:16-cv-04300-JD

Following the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to the Augmented Reality (AR) mobile game, Pokemon Go, developer Niantic must try to dissuade players from trespassing on private property, pay $4 million in attorney fees, and pay all named plaintiffs $1000 each. This settlement was granted by the California court in late August.

The settlement results from a number of property owners who filed a complaint stating that Niantic encouraged Pokemon Go players to trespass on private property by placing in-game virtual locations and rewards on real-world private property.

Originally, plaintiffs had sought $2,500 each in incentive awards, but the judge lowered this number to $1,000, stating: “There’s no reason why it would be so high.”

This case sprang forth from a number of lawsuits filed after Pokemon Go’s remarkable world-wide success in July 2016. These suits were later consolidated and then jointly claimed that Niantic “effectively transformed those properties into scavenger hunt grounds.”

While Niantic repeatedly tried to dismiss the suit, their arguments were not accepted by the court. Given the new technology and issues presented by augmented reality, the judge was willing to allow the case to continue. Niantic argued that it was not responsible for players’ actions and had done nothing wrong. The judge was unable to point to any precedent delineating liability for placing objects in a virtual space associated with private property in the real world, but believed it was enough to trigger the trespassing claims presented in the suit.

The final form of the settlement does not include any monetary payment for non-named plaintiffs, but, to further the goal of protecting private property, Niantic has agreed to set up a website to track and handle complaints related to trespassing and other nuisances created by Pokemon Go. The goal is to resolve any claim with a 15-day window.

Niantic will also take a further step by removing in-game Pokestops and Pokemon Gyms that are located near single-family residential properties, as well as taking efforts to prevent new ones from being created in such places. New in-game notifications will caution players to be wary of their real world surroundings, and Niantic also will change in-game events to more closely correlate with the hours of operation for public parks.

Specifically, the settlement agreement provides coverage to anyone who owns or rents property within nearly a football-field’s distance of a Pokestop or Pokemon Gym, as long as Niantic did not receive prior permission to use the real-world location. This settlement agreement is set to run for three years.

Despite the settlement, Niantic continues to deny all wrongdoing or legal violations related to the suit. Still, it will be interesting to see if there are any new developments in the augmented reality space. As the technology becomes more prevalent more companies and games may attempt to use augmented reality as their platform upon which they build their game. While this settlement does not set any new precedent in the AR space, the willingness of the court to hear the suit at all shows that avoiding liability may not be as simple as Niantic and others may have initially anticipated.

Jan

2018

Pokémon GO Creator Niantic, Inc. sued for Augmented Reality Patent Infringement

On January 30, 2018, Barbaro Technologies, LLC (“Barbaro”) sued Niantic, Inc. (“Niantic”) for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,373,377 and 8,228,325. Barbaro’s asserted patents are generally directed to integrating real-world information (e.g., a real-world geographic location) with an augmented reality environment. Barbaro specifically asserts that both Niantic’s Pokémon GO and Ingress infringe the asserted patents.

Claim 1 of the ’377 Patent reads:

1. A method of integrating real-time information into a virtual thematic environment using a computer system including a client and a server, comprising:
providing a graphics user interface (GUI) module for use in the client system;
providing a quantum imaging environment (QIE) module in one of the client or the server system;
providing a digital logic library in one of the client or the server system;
providing a primary application in the client system;
providing a first user interface that is associated with the primary application;
sending a request for first real-time information via the QIE module to the world wide web;
obtaining the first real-time information via the world wide web;
downloading the first real-time information from the world wide web into the primary application;
providing access to the first real-time information within the virtual thematic environment via the first user interface;
providing at least one secondary application within the primary application at the client system;
sending a request for second real-time information via the QIE module;
obtaining the second real-time information via the world wide web;
downloading the second real-time information into the secondary application;
enabling a user to access the at least one secondary application through the first user interface; and
enabling the user to control the at least one secondary application through a second user interface.

Niantic, which was spun off from Google, Inc. (“Google”), may have been aware of the Barbaro patents as early as 2006. Per Barbaro, around October 26, 2006, Barbaro sent Google’s Deputy General Counsel a copy of patent
publications that led to the issuance of Barbaro’s asserted patents. Google, Inc. allegedly acknowledged the letter but “refused to discuss the matter before the patent issued.” No further detail regarding exchanges between
Barbaro and Google are provided in the complaint.

This is case 2:18-CV-00773 in the District Court for Central District of California. We will track it and keep you apprised of significant updates.

Jan

2018

Photographer sues IGN over Pokémon GO Photo

On January 12, 2018, photographer Christopher Sadowski sued IGN Entertainment, Inc. (“IGN”) for copyright infringement. The copyright in question: a photograph of the Pokémon GO homepage on Sadowski’s cell phone, similar to (but not the same as!) the stock photo shown below.

Sadowski licensed his photograph to the New York Post for a July 12, 2016, article regarding a man who got caught cheating on his girlfriend through Pokémon GO. It appears that IGN may have infringed Sadowski’s copyright by using the image when discussing the New York Post article in an IGN Hungary article titled “6 Crazy Pokémon GO Stories.” The image is absent from IGN’s U.S. version of the article.

However, Sadowski’s case may have an Achilles’ heel. Because Niantic and Nintendo have intellectual property rights in their game (including the login screen), Sadowski’s photograph is arguably a derivative work, and his copyright would thereby extend only to the “material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work.” That’s not likely to be much. Moreover, whatever minimal copyright Sadowski has in his photo “does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.” Lastly, protection for a derivative work using someone else’s material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully (e.g., without the appropriate license). In other words, there’s a fair argument that Sadowski’s photograph rights are only as good as Nintendo and/or Niantic will allow them to be.

Sadowski’s case against IGN is a cautionary tale for Internet content creators. While many questions about the applicability of fair use on the Internet exist, it remains a bad idea to use images from other websites–even news websites–without appropriate permission. Indeed, a royalty free version of the exact same photo exists and could have saved IGN a lot of grief.

U.S. Patent No. 11,007,429: Background process for importing real-world activity data into a location-based game

U.S. Patent No. 11,007,429: Background process for importing real-world activity data into a location-based game

Places Where You Must Not Pokemon Go

Places Where You Must Not Pokemon Go

Pokémon GO Creator Niantic, Inc. sued for Augmented Reality Patent Infringement

Photographer sues IGN over Pokémon GO Photo

Subscribe