Niantic, Inc. v. Imagine AR Inc. et al.

Niantic, Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Imagine AR Inc. and 2343127 Ontario Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of US Patent 10,946,284. Niantic, Inc. is a prominent American software development company and video game developer, renowned for its augmented reality (AR) mobile games such as Pokémon GO, Ingress, and Pikmin Bloom, which encourage real-world exploration and social interaction. Imagine AR Inc., a Canadian company, operates an AR-as-a-service platform that enables businesses across sports, entertainment, and retail sectors to create and deploy interactive AR campaigns without requiring programming expertise. 2343127 Ontario Inc. is also listed as a defendant and likely functions as an affiliated entity or patent holding company for Imagine AR Inc.

This IPR proceeding is directly linked to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by ImagineAR Inc. against Niantic, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW). In that district court case, ImagineAR accuses multiple Niantic products, notably its highly successful augmented reality mobile game Pokémon GO, along with other titles like Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Skatrix, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, of infringing its patents. The asserted patent in this IPR, US Patent 10,946,284, generally pertains to systems and methods for enabling augmented reality experiences that integrate real-world location data or objects, a core technology area for both companies. ImagineAR's patent portfolio emphasizes AR gaming where geolocation is integral to gameplay and modifies virtual storylines based on a player's actual physical location.

The procedural posture of this case at the PTAB is that the petition for IPR2025-01274 was "Not Instituted" on the merits. This means the PTAB, under the authority of the Director, decided not to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, despite Niantic's challenge. This decision is particularly notable in the current climate, as the PTAB has seen an increase in discretionary denials of IPR petitions, often without detailed reasoning, under Director Squires, who assumed personal control over institution decisions in late 2025. Compounding the IPR outcome, the District Court for the District of Delaware recently granted Niantic's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the parallel infringement suit, ruling that ImagineAR's asserted patents, including 10,946,284, were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to abstract ideas. ImagineAR Inc. plans to appeal this district court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case is notable for its industry impact, as it involves leading augmented reality gaming companies and highlights critical legal debates over the patentability of AR technologies, particularly location-based virtual interactions, under Section 101. The IPRs, though not instituted, were part of Niantic's broader defense strategy against the infringement claims.