ImagineAR, Inc. et al. v. Niantic, Inc.

ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. (collectively, "ImagineAR") initiated patent infringement litigation against Niantic, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. ImagineAR is an augmented reality (AR) technology company that provides a mobile platform for businesses to develop and implement AR experiences without extensive programming, offering products like the ImagineAR Mobile App, Cloud, and SDK/API. They also hold a portfolio of U.S. patents covering location-aware gameplay and cross-platform AR delivery. Niantic, Inc., on the other hand, is a prominent American software development and video game company known for its augmented reality mobile games such as Pokémon GO, Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. Niantic's business model heavily relies on in-app purchases and leverages a proprietary spatial computing stack and Lightship AR platform to blend gaming with geospatial mapping and real-world commerce. The lawsuit alleges that Niantic's popular augmented reality games infringe upon ImagineAR's patents.

The asserted patents initially included U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,746; 8,668,592; and 8,579,710, in addition to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,946,284; 11,484,797; 11,666,827; and 12,070,691. However, on September 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson, who presides over the case (Case No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW), dismissed claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,746 ("Gestures To Encapsulate Intent"), 8,668,592 ("Systems And Methods Of Changing Storyline Based On Player Location"), and 8,579,710 ("Systems And Methods Of Virtual Goods Trading Using Ratings To Ascribe Value To Virtual Goods") as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding them directed to abstract ideas. Subsequently, on April 7, 2026, Judge Wolson again ruled that additional patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 10,946,284, 11,484,797, 11,666,827, and 12,070,691, were also invalid under § 101, granting Niantic's motion for judgment on the pleadings. These four patents, all entitled "Systems And Methods For Capture And Use Of Local Elements In Gameplay," share a common specification and are directed to using a player's location to tailor content in the virtual world of a game.

This litigation is before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent cases, ranking second nationally in patent case filings after the Western District of Texas. Judge Joshua D. Wolson is the presiding judge. The case is notable due to the repeated dismissals of ImagineAR's asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patent ineligibility, highlighting the ongoing challenges and scrutiny faced by software and business method patents. The case also involves parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Niantic is challenging the validity of some of ImagineAR's patents, adding another layer of complexity to the dispute. ImagineAR's continued efforts to assert its patent portfolio, despite the § 101 dismissals and ongoing IPRs, underscore its commitment to monetizing its intellectual property in the competitive augmented reality and gaming market.

The patent infringement litigation between ImagineAR, Inc. et al. and Niantic, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has seen significant legal developments, primarily revolving around the patent eligibility of ImagineAR's asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims)

• Complaint Filed: ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. filed the lawsuit against Niantic, Inc. on November 13, 2024. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,746; 8,668,592; 8,579,710; 10,946,284; 11,484,797; 11,666,827; and 12,070,691 by Niantic's augmented reality games, including Pokémon GO, Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Skatrix, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. ImagineAR asserted claims for direct, indirect (induced and contributory), and willful infringement.
• First Amended Complaint (FAC): ImagineAR was granted an unopposed cross-motion to amend and supplement its complaint to further allege indirect and willful infringement claims. Niantic later filed a partial motion to dismiss the FAC.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (September 8, 2025): Niantic filed a motion to dismiss certain claims for patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and to dismiss pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims.
  • On September 8, 2025, Judge Joshua D. Wolson granted Niantic's partial motion to dismiss.
  • The court found U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,746 ("Gestures To Encapsulate Intent"), 8,668,592 ("Systems And Methods Of Changing Storyline Based On Player Location"), and 8,579,710 ("Systems And Methods Of Virtual Goods Trading Using Ratings To Ascribe Value To Virtual Goods") to be patent-ineligible abstract ideas under § 101.
  • Additionally, the court dismissed ImagineAR's claims for pre-suit indirect and willful infringement for the remaining patents, finding insufficient allegations of Niantic's knowledge of alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit.
• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (April 7, 2026): Following Niantic's answer to the FAC, both parties moved to amend their pleadings, with Niantic seeking to file an amended answer to supplement its inequitable conduct defense. Niantic then moved for judgment on the pleadings, again challenging the eligibility of ImagineAR's remaining patents under § 101.
  • On April 7, 2026, Judge Wolson granted Niantic's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,946,284; 11,484,797; 11,666,827; and 12,070,691 were also invalid as abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court stated that these patents, which focused on using a player's location to tailor game content, lacked an inventive concept.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• The case did not reach the claim construction stage (Markman hearing) for the dismissed patents, as the court found them ineligible under § 101 at the motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings stages. ImagineAR's argument that claim construction and discovery were needed for § 101 analysis was deemed insufficient.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Discovery in Parallel IPRs: As of August 1, 2025, ImagineAR served Infringement Contentions spanning over 650 pages, and by August 28, 2025, Niantic served Invalidity Contentions with 48 charts. Both parties produced thousands of pages of documents in connection with parallel PTAB proceedings and the district court litigation (ImagineAR produced over 5,000 pages, Niantic over 25,000 pages).

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case did not proceed to trial due to the dismissals based on patent ineligibility.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal — Final Disposition

• Dismissal/Judgment: As a result of the two § 101 rulings, all asserted patents have been found invalid. The case was terminated on April 7, 2026, the date of the second § 101 ruling.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Niantic initiated several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of ImagineAR's patents.
  • IPR2025-01273 (U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827): Filed by Niantic on July 13, 2025 (or July 14, 2025). The PTAB denied institution for this IPR on January 8, 2026.
  • IPR2025-01276 (likely involving additional patents): Filed on July 14, 2025. Institution was denied for this IPR on January 9, 2026.
  • An attorney for ImagineAR noted in a PTAB filing that the district court litigation involved the same patents at issue in IPR2025-1273, IPR2025-1274, IPR2025-1275, and IPR2025-1276. The denial of institution in the IPRs meant that the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of those specific challenges, but the district court litigation separately invalidated the patents.

ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. are represented by a team of attorneys from various law firms.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in ImagineAR, Inc. et al. v. Niantic, Inc.:

• Renee Mosley Delcollo

  • Role: Likely local counsel (Delaware) and potentially involved in lead counsel aspects.
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, P.A. (Office location not specified in search results, but Greenberg Traurig has a Delaware office).
  • Experience Note: Renee Mosley Delcollo of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. was listed as counsel for ImagineAR, Inc. in a September 2025 opinion regarding the partial dismissal of patent claims.

• James J. Lukas, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC (Stamford, Connecticut).
  • Experience Note: St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC is a full-service intellectual property law firm with significant experience in patent litigation and inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. James J. Lukas, Jr. is listed as representing ImagineAR, Inc. in the District Court case and in the appeal to the Federal Circuit.

• Sean Patchin, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC (Stamford, Connecticut).
  • Experience Note: St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC specializes in intellectual property law, including patent prosecution and litigation. Sean Patchin, Jr. is listed as representing Imagine AR, Inc. and ImagineAR, Inc. in the District Court case.

• Erik M. Bokar

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in parallel PTAB proceedings), also counsel of record in the District Court litigation.
  • Firm: St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC (Stamford, Connecticut).
  • Experience Note: Erik M. Bokar is licensed in Illinois and Florida and is involved in both the District Court litigation and parallel IPRs, indicating familiarity with the patents and technological issues.

Other attorneys who have entered appearances for ImagineAR, Inc. in the District Court include Matthew J. Levinstein, Patrick J. Owens, and Benjamin P. Gilford. Their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel) are not explicitly defined in the provided search results but they are associated with the plaintiff's legal team. It is common for out-of-state firms like St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC to associate with local Delaware counsel, such as Greenberg Traurig or Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, given Delaware's prominence in patent litigation.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Let me gather more detail on each defense attorney and check for any appeal-stage representation.

Now let me research the Perkins Coie team and check for any appeal-stage counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Niantic, Inc.

Niantic is represented by a two-firm team: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, Delaware — local counsel of record, the CM/ECF filers under D. Del. LR 83.5(d)) and Perkins Coie LLP (out-of-state lead litigation team, admitted pro hac vice). All of the following are named on filings I located, including the caption block on Niantic's discovery/subpoena filings and the D.I. 29 pro hac vice motion granted March 25, 2025.

Delaware counsel — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (One Rodney Square, 920 N. King St., Wilmington, DE 19801)

Lead/out-of-state counsel — Perkins Coie LLP (admitted pro hac vice, D.I. 29, granted Mar. 25, 2025; added to CM/ECF noticing Mar. 26, 2025)

Parallel PTAB proceedings — Niantic's petitioner counsel (Perkins Coie)

Niantic's IPR power of attorney (executed July 10, 2025, signed by Michael Kim on Niantic's behalf — likely an in-house/authorized Niantic signatory, though his title is not stated in the document I located) designates Perkins Coie attorneys at USPTO Customer No. 189558:

• Jessica C. Kaiser (Reg. No. 58,937) — Lead counsel, Perkins Coie, Denver, CO (1900 Sixteenth St., Ste. 1400).
• Christopher Marando (Reg. No. 67,898) — Back-up counsel, Perkins Coie, Washington, DC.
• Atanas Baitchev (Reg. No. 82,414) — Back-up counsel, Perkins Coie, San Diego, CA.

These counsel appear in IPR2025-01273 (U.S. Pat. No. 11,666,827) and IPR2025-01276 (U.S. Pat. No. 12,070,691), where the PTAB denied institution on January 8 and 9, 2026, respectively.

---

Caveats and gaps

• Firm name change: Chambers USA 2026 and Perkins Coie's own newsroom now refer to the firm as "Ashurst Perkins Coie" or "Ashurst Perkins Coie LLP," while court filings in this case caption it as "Perkins Coie LLP." I flag this as a likely rebrand/combination rather than a substitution of counsel; the same individual attorneys (Piepmeier, Sabri, etc.) appear under both names. Treat the entity name with caution.
• No in-house counsel of record: I found no Niantic in-house attorney entered as counsel of record in the district court docket. The only Niantic-side signatory I identified is Michael Kim on the IPR power of attorney; his role at Niantic is not confirmed by the document.
• Appeal-stage counsel not confirmed. The case was terminated by final judgment on April 7, 2026 (D.I. 142), and the docket I could retrieve was last updated April 13, 2026, with no notice of appeal shown. The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section references James J. Lukas, Jr. as "listed as representing ImagineAR ... in the appeal to the Federal Circuit" — I could not corroborate any Federal Circuit appeal or appellate counsel for either side, and no Federal Circuit docket number surfaced in my searches. If an appeal was noticed after mid-April 2026, appellate counsel would likely be the same Perkins Coie team (Piepmeier is admitted to the Federal Circuit) with RLF as Delaware counsel, but that is an inference, not a sourced fact.
• Not independently verified: I did not obtain a current PACER docket sheet directly. The attorney roster above is drawn from (a) the caption/service blocks of Niantic's court filings reproduced in USPTO PTAB records, (b) the D.I. 29 pro hac vice order and Mar. 26, 2025 CM/ECF notice (as quoted in the docket extract), (c) PacerMonitor's "Represented By" list, (d) the IPR power of attorney, and (e) VitalLaw/Law360 attorney-of-record lines. Two of these secondary sources (UniCourt, dated Jan. 12, 2025) list only Kelly E. Farnan as defendant counsel, reflecting the docket before the Perkins Coie pro hac vice appearances — an outdated snapshot, not a contradiction.