Patently Strategic Podcast: Into the Patentverse, Volume 2 - IPWatchdog.com

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) intelligence spot (IP) person been astir for immoderate clip now, but however bash they subordinate to the Metaverse? And however volition VR and AR patent rights alteration arsenic the Metaverse continues to evolve? The Patently Strategic Podcast volition beryllium exploring these topics successful our adjacent installment of Into the Patentverse.

Episode Overview

Earlier this year, we began our foray into this satellite with a deep dive into the gathering blocks that could precise good signifier the structural and economical underpinnings of the Metaverse by exploring the tech concepts and IP implications surrounding Web 3.0, blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs. Today we physique connected this, by expanding our speech into the astir apt interfaces for the Metaverse, arsenic good arsenic however patentability and infringement could play retired arsenic we meld innovations betwixt the carnal and digitals realms.

As a travel up to the archetypal Into the Patentverse episode, Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist and bundle patent guru, leads a treatment on with our all-star patent panel, to uncover:

• The Metaverse arsenic a concept
• VR vs. AR vs. Metaverse differentiation
• Infringement successful the Metaverse

Along the way, the radical besides shares immoderate large tips for drafting claims astir the virtual satellite to get astir carnal satellite anterior art, arsenic good arsenic immoderate pointers for avoiding divided infringement for processes that are performed successful a distributed mode – arsenic volition astir ever beryllium the lawsuit with Metaverse-based innovations.

The Metaverse arsenic a Concept

When you perceive the word Metaverse, what bash you deliberation of? The humanities notation to Neal Stephenson’s epic caller Snow Crash? Maybe the word makes you deliberation of thing from Matthew Ball’s essays astir the Metaverse being interoperable, scalable, self-economizing, and multi-user interactive? Or bash you deliberation of immoderate esoteric explanation that describes virtual abstraction and gaming?

At a minimum, the Metaverse offers a virtual spot oregon clip successful which to execute bundle oregon utilize virtual hardware and virtual objects. In IP practice, the Metaverse is often boiled down to a database of features oregon guidelines that whitethorn correspond a virtual backdrop for an invention. This virtual backdrop whitethorn see aspects of what virtual world (VR) and augmented world (AR) are today.

In the adjacent future, users whitethorn look to get (or provide) services and experiences successful a virtual mode wrong the Metaverse. What volition the IP scenery for the Metaverse look similar for inventors of those Metaverse-based services oregon experiences? If an inventor invents a caller virtual work accessible successful the Metaverse, the virtual backdrop whitethorn beryllium a VR interface that a idiosyncratic tin entree to get and/or interact with the caller service. The VR interface whitethorn person aspects that marque the invention little evident than inventions crafted to beryllium accessed successful existent life. How bash we find if a Metaverse-based invention is new? Is it caller based connected the invention features? Or is it caller due to the fact that the invention is dropped into a caller environment?

Virtual Reality vs. Augmented Reality

Differentiating virtual world from augmented world typically boils down to the hardware being utilized. In virtual reality, 2D oregon 3D virtual contented whitethorn beryllium accessed utilizing a caput mounted show (HMD) instrumentality wherever the existent satellite is blocked from view. The virtual satellite is shown connected the HMD display, which tin beryllium placed successful adjacent proximity to the eyes of a user. A VR acquisition tin beryllium accessed connected a user-by-user ground oregon shared with aggregate users astatine once.

In augmented reality, 2D oregon 3D virtual contented whitethorn besides beryllium accessed utilizing an HMD (or astute glasses, AR glasses, etc.), but successful AR, the HMD is transparent specified that the virtual contented appears overlaid onto a information of the existent satellite and the existent satellite tin beryllium viewed portion accessing the virtual content. The idiosyncratic whitethorn entree accusation from some the virtual satellite and the existent satellite specified that the virtual contented augments the existent satellite with respect to what the idiosyncratic views. An AR acquisition tin beryllium accessed connected a user-by-user ground oregon shared with aggregate users astatine once.

Virtual world tends to beryllium the astir immersive of the 2 due to the fact that VR blocks retired the existent satellite portion augmented world allows you to peek retired astatine the existent satellite portion consuming oregon viewing virtual content. Aspects of the Metaverse whitethorn beryllium and beryllium accessed wrong some a virtual world league and an augmented world session.

IP successful Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality

When inventions are claimed successful VR and AR, IP practitioners volition typically usage presumption to lucifer the world, specified arsenic “augmented world headset” oregon “virtual object.” These presumption differentiate from existent satellite carnal objects successful that “virtual objects” are displayed connected a surface (e.g., the “augmented world headset”), alternatively than existing arsenic objects placed successful carnal abstraction successful the existent world.

The systems and methods claimed for some VR and AR see existent satellite steps and bundle determinations carried retired by processors executing bundle codification to analyse interactions and show contented successful an HMD oregon to show contented arsenic augmented world contented connected an AR headset and to look arsenic overlaid connected a real-world object.

Rejections from the USPTO for these types of claims typically see anterior creation that combines a non-VR (or non-AR) notation with a VR (or AR) reference.

We person yet to find whether Metaverse-type inventions volition beryllium rejected successful a akin manner. On the different broadside of patenting Metaverse-type inventions, what volition infringement assessments of specified inventions look like?

Infringement successful the Metaverse

This occurrence of Patently Strategic volition instrumentality a person look astatine however peculiar Metaverse-type method and strategy claims whitethorn beryllium assessed for infringement purposes. In particular, the parallels that tin beryllium made betwixt real-world devices and bundle implementations of those real-world devices volition beryllium discussed including:

• Infringement of Method Claims successful the Metaverse
• Infringement of System Claims successful the Metaverse
• The Doctrine of Equivalence

Discussion Panel

Kristen worked connected VR and AR patents for astir a decade, including those held by immoderate of the Valley giants looking to specify the space. We honestly couldn’t deliberation of a amended idiosyncratic to pb this conversation! Kristen is besides joined contiguous by our ever exceptional radical of IP experts including:

• Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy astatine Aurora
• David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
• Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate astatine Aurora
• ? Sophia Li, Patent Strategy Fellow astatine Aurora

Case Law Resources

Case instrumentality accompanying the treatment tin beryllium recovered here:

• Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
• Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1531 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
• Ross Winans v. Adam, Edward, and Talbot Denmead, 56 U.S. astatine 342-43
• Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21, 29 (1997)