Invalidity dossier
US 10664518
Added 5/4/2026, 6:00:41 AM
Got a demand letter citing US 10664518?
Paste the full letter into the analyzer. We extract every asserted patent (this one and any others), characterize the asserter, flag validity vulnerabilities, and draft a sample response letter your attorney can adapt.
Generic sample response letter (PDF)
Generates a draft reply letter to a generic infringement claim citing this patent, using the analysis below. For a response tailored to a specific letter you received, use the demand letter analyzer instead. Sample only — not legal advice. Do not send without review by a licensed patent attorney.
Watchlist
Get alerted when this patent moves.
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when US 10664518 gets a new lawsuit, a new PTAB proceeding, or a new dossier section. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro
Auto-generating section 1 of 2: PTAB challenges…
Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
A concise summary of US Patent 10,664,518, including details of recent legal challenges, is provided below.
Summary of U.S. Patent 10,664,518
Title: Wide area augmented reality location-based services
Assignee: The patent is assigned to Nant Holdings IP LLC.
Inventors: David Mckinnon, Kamil Wnuk, Jeremi Sudol, Matheen Siddiqui, John Wiacek, Bing Song, and Nicholas J. Witchey are listed as the inventors.
Filing Date: The application for this patent was filed on October 23, 2018.
Issue Date: The patent was issued on May 26, 2020.
Abstract: The patent describes apparatuses, methods, and systems for providing Augmented Reality (AR) content. The technology involves obtaining an initial map of an area, deriving "views of interest," and then obtaining AR content objects associated with these views. The system establishes "experience clusters" and generates a "tile map" that is tessellated based on these clusters. A user's device can then be configured to obtain and display the AR content based on its location and object recognition within that location.
Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims
U.S. Patent 10,664,518 contains several independent claims, which are the broadest claims of the patent. Below is a plain-language explanation of each.
Claim 1: This claim describes a method for managing AR content. It involves a system that accesses a map of a real-world area, which is divided into "tessellated tiles." These tiles are linked to specific AR content. The system identifies which tile a user's device is in and then determines a "view of interest" for that device. Based on this view, the system sends the relevant AR content to be displayed on the user's device.
Claim 7: This claim focuses on an "AR management engine." This engine is a system that performs the method outlined in Claim 1. It obtains the map with tessellated tiles, identifies the user's location within a specific tile, determines the view of interest, and then causes the AR content associated with that tile and view to be rendered on the user's device.
Claim 14: This claim is for a non-transitory computer-readable medium (like a hard drive or other storage) that contains instructions. When a processor executes these instructions, it performs the method described in Claim 1. This includes accessing the tiled map, identifying the device's location on a tile, and rendering the appropriate AR content based on a view of interest.
Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 10,664,518
In a notable legal development, this patent was the subject of a lawsuit, NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On April 23, 2026, the court affirmed a lower court's decision that several claims of U.S. Patent 10,664,518 are invalid. The court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "providing information based on a location on a map" and lacked a sufficient inventive concept to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling significantly impacts the enforceability of the challenged claims of the patent.
Generated 5/4/2026, 6:01:34 AM