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.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for ImagineAR Inc. v. Niantic, Inc.

The patent infringement litigation, ImagineAR, Inc. et al v. Niantic, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW, in the District of Delaware, has seen significant activity, primarily focusing on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 and the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2024-11-13): ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. (collectively, "IAR") filed suit against Niantic, Inc., alleging infringement of multiple patents, including US Patent Nos. 10,946,284, 11,484,797, 11,666,827, and 12,070,691 (the "Patents-In-Suit"), as well as 8,777,746, 8,668,592, and 8,579,710. The complaint asserted claims for direct, indirect (induced and contributory), and willful infringement, primarily related to Niantic's augmented reality games like Pokémon GO, Pikmin Bloom, Peridot, Skatrix, Monster Hunter Now, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite.
• First Amended Complaint: IAR filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), further detailing its infringement claims. Niantic subsequently answered the FAC.
• Motions to Amend Pleadings (Pending as of 2026-04-07): After Niantic answered the FAC, both parties moved to amend their respective pleadings. Niantic sought to amend its answer to supplement an inequitable conduct defense, and IAR moved to file a Second Amended Complaint to allege infringement of two additional patents and include more information about Niantic's pre-suit knowledge. These motions remained pending as of April 7, 2026.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Niantic's Partial Motion to Dismiss (Granted 2025-09-08): Niantic filed a motion to dismiss certain claims. The court granted this motion, dismissing IAR's claims for pre-suit indirect and willful infringement for the Patents-In-Suit.
  • As part of this motion, the court also found three of IAR's patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,746, 8,668,592, and 8,579,710) invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to abstract ideas. These patents concerned systems for trading virtual goods, using touch screen commands in a virtual game, and tailoring game content based on player geographic location. The court concluded that these claims used functional, results-oriented language without sufficiently describing how the functions could be achieved and lacked an inventive concept beyond the abstract ideas.
• Niantic's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Granted 2026-04-07): Niantic moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the remaining Patents-In-Suit (10,946,284, 11,484,797, 11,666,827, and 12,070,691) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101.
  • On April 7, 2026, Judge Joshua D. Wolson granted Niantic's motion, ruling that all claims in these patents were invalid because they were abstract and non-inventive. The court determined that the patents were directed to using a player's location to tailor content in a virtual game world, which was deemed an abstract idea without an inventive concept. This marked the second time Niantic successfully challenged ImagineAR's patents under §101 in this case.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Based on the summary, the case did not reach a formal Markman hearing or claim construction ruling on the merits for the asserted patents, as the case was resolved on Section 101 grounds at the pleadings stage.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Agreed Schedule (2025-05-09): The parties established an agreed schedule for the litigation.
• Protective Order (2025-06-04): A protective order was entered in the case.
• Order on Motion to Compel (2025-09-12): An order was issued on a motion to compel, indicating discovery disputes.
• Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Denied 2025-11-19): IAR's unopposed motion for leave to file certain documents under seal, including a draft Patent Purchase Agreement and an email, was denied by Judge Wolson. The court found that IAR failed to demonstrate it would suffer a clearly defined and serious injury if these documents became public, noting that the age of the information undermined the rationale for protection.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR Filings (e.g., IPR2025-01274): Niantic filed several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against ImagineAR's patents, including IPR2025-01274, which challenged US Patent 10,946,284. These IPRs were part of Niantic's broader defense strategy against the infringement claims.
• Not Instituted on Merits (IPR2025-01274): The PTAB did not institute IPR2025-01274 on the merits. This decision occurred in a climate where the PTAB, under Director Squires, has increased discretionary denials of IPR petitions, often without detailed reasoning.
• Discretionary Denial Arguments: In at least one IPR (IPR2025-01273, related to Patent No. 11,666,827), ImagineAR argued for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing Niantic's years-long awareness of the patents and choice not to pursue earlier patentability attacks, as well as the progress of the parallel district court litigation. ImagineAR asserted that the litigation was well underway, and the IPR petitions recycled the same art and arguments raised in the district court.
• Impact on Litigation: While the IPRs were "Not Instituted," the underlying challenges to patent validity in the district court were successful, leading to a judgment on the pleadings for Niantic based on Section 101 invalidity. This made the IPRs less critical to Niantic's overall defense outcome, as the district court found the patents ineligible.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

• Judgment on the Pleadings (2026-04-07): The District Court for the District of Delaware granted Niantic's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that all asserted patents, including 10,946,284, were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
• Appeal Planned: ImagineAR Inc. plans to appeal this district court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel in the underlying Delaware litigation (ImagineAR v. Niantic, 1:24-cv-01252-JDW), since the IPR petitioner Niantic corresponds to the district court defendant.

Now let me verify the plaintiff's counsel of record directly from filings and check for any changes/appellate counsel.

Let me verify the docket-level appearances, the appeal counsel, and the role of 2343127 Ontario Inc.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff / Patent Owner Side

Important framing note. The case metadata lists the "defendants" in IPR2025-01274 as Imagine AR Inc. and 2343127 Ontario Inc. Those entities are the patent owner / plaintiff side — they are the patent owner in the IPR and the plaintiffs in the parallel Delaware action ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW (D. Del.). The IPR petitioner, Niantic, Inc., is the defendant in that district court case (the prior "Defendant representatives" section covered Niantic's side). The plaintiff-side team is unified: Greenberg Traurig, LLP serves as both national counsel and Delaware counsel.

Also note a name-chain fact that resolves the party caption: 2343127 Ontario Inc. was the original assignee of the '284 patent and is a predecessor-in-interest, not a separately represented party. Per Imagine AR's own statement to the USPTO, the chain is 2343127 Ontario Inc. → (name change) XMG Studio Inc. → Imagination Park Technologies Inc. → Imagine AR, Inc. → ImagineAR, Inc. (name changes recorded at Reels 045888/0036, 049249/0617, 062020/0528, and Oct. 21, 2024). The D. Del. plaintiffs are captioned as ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. — the same corporate line, represented by the same Greenberg Traurig team.

Greenwood Traurig counsel appearing for Plaintiffs ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc. (D. Del. C.A. No. 24-1252-JDW)

Sources for the plaintiff-side roster: plaintiffs' signature block ("Attorneys for Plaintiffs ImagineAR, Inc. and Imagine AR, Inc.") reproduced in the PTAB record (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558198](/patent/1558198)/download-documents?artifactId=NwDtfT29lEaO6OGAG8tOuIrgKoMrdUA7-2iV8uzjh8Zfs2ZIUL5k94E) and the Sept. 19, 2025 GT correspondence produced in the IPR (artifactId=J9BHgKZwn1uSTrb30rOPkTT6h5tvpoIIEz_DrS4Z2LPHbbSETBSwGt0); Patent Owner's mandatory notices, IPR2025-01273 (artifactId=pFMew1OezeJa2k_xm-dEQIsO3oMXx4NemDuXVBoZCkca4tKy8g-CaPs); docket-aggregator plaintiff-attorney lists (UniCourt; PACER Monitor: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55839276/ImagineAR,_Inc_et_al_v_Niantic,_Inc); and VitalLaw counsel identifications in the Sept. 8, 2025 and Apr. 7, 2026 decisions.

Points of caution / gaps

1. No in-house counsel identified. I found no named in-house attorney for ImagineAR appearing on the docket. Ray Sharma (founder of XMG Studios, a named inventor) is referenced only as a client contact via plaintiffs' counsel, not as counsel.
2. Retention is documented at the corporate level. ImagineAR publicly announced on Sept. 10, 2024 that it "retained global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP to serve as ImagineAR's legal counsel in matters concerning ImagineAR's expansive patent portfolio," so the GT engagement is corroborated outside the docket (CSE newsfile: https://webfiles.thecse.com/[222755](/patent/222755).pdf).
3. IPR-specific papers were verified for IPR2025-01273, not -01274. The mandatory notices I retrieved are from the companion IPR against the '827 patent. The GT roster is consistent across the Niantic IPR family (IPR2025-01273/-01274/-01275/-01276), and GT attorneys are the correspondents on all of them, but I did not personally pull the § 42.8 notice filed in IPR2025-01274 itself.
4. Appellate counsel unverified. The Federal Circuit appeal is docketed as No. 26-1720, ImagineAR Inc. v. Niantic Inc. (filed 04/22/2026; notice of appeal at D. Del. Dkt. 143–145, dated Apr. 21, 2026). I could not confirm from the sources retrieved who will handle the appeal — most likely GT, but treat that as unverified.
5. Potential contradiction with the earlier "Defendant representatives" section (flagging explicitly): that section named O'Melveny & Myers LLP (David Almeling) as Niantic's national counsel. The actual D. Del. and PTAB filings show Niantic is represented by Richards, Layton & Finger (Kelly E. Farnan, Sara M. Metzler) as Delaware counsel and Perkins Coie LLP (Andrew Ohlert, Sarah E. Piepmeier, Nathan Sabri, Matthew Lutz, Abigail A. Gardner; IPR lead Jessica C. Kaiser, Reg. No. 58,937; back-up Christopher Marando and Atanas Baitchev) as national/IPR counsel. O'Melveny/Almeling may relate to other Niantic matters, but it does not appear in the filings for this case.

Niantic, Inc., the defendant in the patent infringement lawsuit (ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW), is represented by a combination of national and local counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) Niantic, Inc.

Local Counsel (Delaware)

• Kelly E. Farnan
  • Role: Director, Head of Intellectual Property Group, Local Counsel
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Experience: A nationally recognized trial lawyer and head of her firm's Intellectual Property Group, Kelly Farnan focuses on complex commercial and high-stakes intellectual property disputes in Delaware's state and federal courts, with significant experience in patent litigation. She was named Managing IP's Delaware Litigator of the Year in 2025 and is consistently recognized as a top patent attorney in Delaware. She is explicitly listed as counsel for Niantic, Inc. in court documents.

National Counsel

• O'Melveny & Myers LLP

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: O'Melveny has multiple offices, including in California and New York, and is known for its nationwide patent litigation practice.
  • Relevant Experience: O'Melveny & Myers has a strong intellectual property practice, particularly noted for representing high-tech clients in patent infringement claims, including those made by non-practicing entities. The firm has "extensive experience before the US International Trade Commission, the US Patent and Trademark Office, and federal courts across the country, particularly in districts known for patent litigation." O'Melveny is explicitly identified as a trusted partner for Niantic in high-stakes patent litigation.

• David S. Almeling

  • Role: Partner, Patent Litigator
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California
  • Relevant Experience: David Almeling is an accomplished patent litigator who advises clients on patent strategy and litigates patent cases. He also represents clients at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including serving as first chair at several Inter Partes Review hearings. IAM Patent 1000 has described him as an "up-and-coming star" who "gets great results."

While O'Melveny & Myers LLP represents Niantic, specific individual attorneys from the firm, other than David Almeling, were not explicitly named in the provided search results as appearing for Niantic in this particular case for patent litigation. The firm's reputation and client relationship with Niantic in patent matters are well-documented.