
Into the Patentverse Vol. 2: AR, VR, and Virtual Infringement
10/27/22 • 61 min
We’re slipping our headsets on and heading back into the Metaverse! Earlier this year, we began our foray into this world with a deep dive into the building blocks that could very well form the structural and economic underpinnings of the Metaverse by exploring the tech concepts and IP implications surrounding Web 3.0, blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs. Today we build on this, by expanding our conversation into the most likely interfaces for the Metaverse, as well as how patentability and infringement could play out as we meld innovations between the physical and digital realms.
In this month’s episode, Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist and software patent guru here at Aurora, leads a discussion along with our all star patent panel, exploring questions including:
⦿ What is the Metaverse?
⦿ How do virtual and augmented realities fit in?
⦿ And what does infringement look like in the Metaverse or what might it look like in the future?
Along the way, the group also shares some great tips for drafting claims around the virtual world to get around physical world prior art, as well as some pointers for avoiding divided infringement for processes that are performed in a distributed manner – as will almost always be the case with Metaverse-based innovations.
Kristen worked on VR and AR patents for nearly a decade, including those held by some of the Valley giants looking to define the space. We honestly couldn’t think of a better person to lead this conversation. Kristen is also joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora
⦿ David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate
⦿ Dr. Sophia Li, Patent Strategy Fellow
Before joining the group, as we often do, we’d like to provide a short primer on some key concepts in this episode for those newer to the world of patenting. This primer covers:
⦿ Method vs. Apparatus Claims
⦿ Doctrine of Equivalents
** Resources **
⦿ Show Notes: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/into-the-patentverse-vol-2-ar-vr-and-virtual-infringement
⦿ Slides: https://www.aurorapatents.com/uploads/9/8/1/1/98119826/2022_psm_metaverse_ii.pdf
** Follow Aurora Consulting **
⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
And as always, thanks for listening!
---
Note: The contents of this podc
We’re slipping our headsets on and heading back into the Metaverse! Earlier this year, we began our foray into this world with a deep dive into the building blocks that could very well form the structural and economic underpinnings of the Metaverse by exploring the tech concepts and IP implications surrounding Web 3.0, blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs. Today we build on this, by expanding our conversation into the most likely interfaces for the Metaverse, as well as how patentability and infringement could play out as we meld innovations between the physical and digital realms.
In this month’s episode, Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist and software patent guru here at Aurora, leads a discussion along with our all star patent panel, exploring questions including:
⦿ What is the Metaverse?
⦿ How do virtual and augmented realities fit in?
⦿ And what does infringement look like in the Metaverse or what might it look like in the future?
Along the way, the group also shares some great tips for drafting claims around the virtual world to get around physical world prior art, as well as some pointers for avoiding divided infringement for processes that are performed in a distributed manner – as will almost always be the case with Metaverse-based innovations.
Kristen worked on VR and AR patents for nearly a decade, including those held by some of the Valley giants looking to define the space. We honestly couldn’t think of a better person to lead this conversation. Kristen is also joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora
⦿ David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate
⦿ Dr. Sophia Li, Patent Strategy Fellow
Before joining the group, as we often do, we’d like to provide a short primer on some key concepts in this episode for those newer to the world of patenting. This primer covers:
⦿ Method vs. Apparatus Claims
⦿ Doctrine of Equivalents
** Resources **
⦿ Show Notes: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/into-the-patentverse-vol-2-ar-vr-and-virtual-infringement
⦿ Slides: https://www.aurorapatents.com/uploads/9/8/1/1/98119826/2022_psm_metaverse_ii.pdf
** Follow Aurora Consulting **
⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
And as always, thanks for listening!
---
Note: The contents of this podc
Previous Episode

Means-Plus-Function: The Risk of Losing Your Way
Word choice matters a great deal in the world of patenting. You’re using the English language to draw a picture around highly technical concepts. The precision with which this is done, down to the semantic level, can make all of the difference when it comes to your patent application being rejected or granted – and the future likelihood of your ability to assert your rights or defend against invalidation. Word choice too narrow or overly specific – and you can easily be designed around by competitors. Word choice too broad and only describing what something is vs. what it does and you risk rejection or invalidation for what will be ruled as linguistic tricks to get more coverage than what you actually invented. The tension is real and the case law interpretation is fluid, but it all still comes down to determining if the chosen words will enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out an invention – in the interest of other inventors being able to build on the idea, while also avoiding trespassing with infringement.
One very particular place this tension between breadth of coverage and specificity in enablement arises is with the concept of means-plus-function claim language. In this month’s episode, Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora, leads a discussion, along with our all star patent panel, into the nuanced world of means-plus-function claiming. The group digs into the statute, explores relevant case law in an analysis of the kinds of word choices that have and haven’t caused problems for inventors, and also provides some great drafting tips for de-risking the use of means-plus-function claim language.
Ashley is joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist at Aurora
⦿ Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ David Cohen, Principal at Cohen Sciences
⦿ Shelley Couturier, Patent Strategist and Search Specialist
Before jumping into the deep with the panel, we also provide a quick primer on key concepts including specification vs claims, Section 112 enablement, functional claim language, and nonce words.
** Resources **
⦿ Show Notes⦿ Slides
** Follow Aurora Consulting **
⦿ Home
⦿ Twitter
⦿ LinkedIn
⦿ Facebook
⦿ Instagram
And as always, thanks for listening!
---
Note: The contents of this podcast do not constitute legal advice.
Next Episode

Unpredictable Arts: Patenting Bio, Chem, and Emerging Technologies
Think your innovation is sufficiently enabled to secure, defend, and assert your patent rights? If it’s a biological, chemical, or emerging technology invention then you might want to think again. In today’s episode we’re looking into how to get more predictable results from the unpredictable arts.
Some technologies, like those rooted in physics and mechanics, are considered “predictable” by the US Patent Office, while others, like biological and chemical technologies, are generally considered “unpredictable.” It follows that the amount of disclosure required to enable an invention is related to the predictability of the technology, and so-called unpredictable arts require more description to teach a reader how to “make and use” the technology. Similarly, emerging technologies, being less well known, also require more disclosure to be fully enabled.
In this month’s episode, David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting, leads a discussion along with our all star patent panel, exploring enablement for the unpredictable arts and emerging technologies. The panel discusses peculiarities of patenting unpredictable art and emerging technologies, with a focus on modern case law and statutes to arrive at a set of best practices for getting more predictable results when patenting these technologies.
Dave is also joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist at Aurora
⦿ Shelley Couturier, Patent Strategist and Search Specialist
Before joining the group, as we often do, we’d like to provide a short primer on some key concepts in this episode for those newer to the world of patenting. This primer covers:
⦿ Section 112
⦿ What is the MPEP?
⦿ Specification vs. Claims
⦿ Genus vs. Species Claims
⦿ Markush Groups
** Resources **
⦿ Show Notes: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/predictable-results-from-unpredictable-arts
⦿ Slides: https://www.aurorapatents.com/uploads/9/8/1/1/98119826/unpredictable_art.pdf
⦿ MPEP: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
⦿ How to Read Chemical and Drug Patents: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/how-to-read-chemical-and-drug-patents
** Follow Aurora Consulting **
⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
And as always, thanks for listening!
---
Note: The co
Patently Strategic - Patent Strategy for Startups - Into the Patentverse Vol. 2: AR, VR, and Virtual Infringement
Transcript
WEBVTT
00:05.112 --> 00:08.602
G'day and welcome to the Patently Strategic Podcast, where we discuss all things at the
00:08.620 --> 00:12.147
intersection of business, technology and patents. This podcast
00:12.192 --> 00:16.212
is a monthly discussion amongst experts in the field of patenting. It is for inventors,
00:16.287 --> 00:19.827
founders and IP professionals alike, established or aspiring.
00:19.932 --> 00:23.347
In today's episode, we're
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/patently-strategic-patent-strategy-for-startups-226111/into-the-patentverse-vol-2-ar-vr-and-virtual-infringement-25613531"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to into the patentverse vol. 2: ar, vr, and virtual infringement on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy