Patents are not simply legal rights. Rather, they are strategic assets that protect innovation and shape competitive landscapes. Meta, most prominently known for its vast social network “Facebook,” boasts an extensive and diverse patent portfolio that spans various technologies. This diversity not only showcases Meta’s technological ambition but also its foresight in securing a place in emerging markets, like AI, virtual reality, and augmented reality. Its broad portfolio embodies Meta’s strategy to not just lead in social networking, but to be a dominant player across the tech spectrum. Let’s delve into how Meta’s strategic patenting plays a pivotal role in its multi-market success. Before we investigate what makes Meta’s patent structuring so effective, let’s review what patents are and why they’re important.
Patent Basics
A patent is a document that provides official rights to the inventor of the patent, or whoever the inventor has assigned. The inventor, also called the patent owner, has the right to exclude others from activities such as making, using, and selling the patented invention for a certain period of time (normally about 20 years).
A claim is a part of a patent that defines the boundaries of the invention’s protection. It outlines what the patent covers and what it doesn’t. Therefore, a claim is essential when a patent owner enforces its rights against others, for example by filing a legal complaint for patent infringement. For language that has such strong legal weight, surprisingly, patent claims are just a single sentence. Each claim in a patent is treated as its own intellectual property right. Patents often have 20 claims because one filing fee permits you that many.
Competitive Exclusion
Effective inventors must strategize how to obtain strong claims. Claims are the linchpin of patent strategy: they define the scope of protection and thus the value of the patent itself. Meta’s patents are strong because their claims are crafted to be broad enough to cover key technologies, while specific enough to overcome rejection based on existing inventions. This reflects good patent drafting strategy. Managing the balancing act well enables Meta to protect its innovations effectively and exclude competitors from key market territory.
Types of Claims
There are two types of patent claims: “independent claims” and “dependent claims.” An independent claim is a single sentence in a patent that describes a unique invention on its own, without relying on any other claims in the patent for its definition. Dependent claims automatically incorporate the language of an independent claim it “depends” on. Then, the dependent claim adds or defines language to make a narrower claim than the independent claim. For example, an independent claim might be “an apple.” Then, a dependent claim that “depends” on that independent claim could be “an apple wherein the apple is a honey crisp apple.” Thus, the independent claim sets the stage with broad language but must cover the core aspects of an invention. So, in our apple example, the broad claim to an apple would cover ANY apple–not only honey crisp, but also Macintosh, Granny Smith, etc. You should see that independent claims are very valuable if they can exclude a wide area. However, dependent claims are also valuable because they cover specific details, adding more layers of protection to variations.
Now that we have a basic understanding of claim construction, let’s look at one of Meta’s patents.
Exploring “Boundaries”
Photo by Oleg Afonin licensed under the applicable terms of Creative Commons
An examination of Meta’s patents reveals how the company uses claims to secure a competitive edge. Let’s start by examining the patent entitled Systems and methods for modifying a safety boundary for virtual reality systems. Here, this patent protects the invention of a boundary that virtual reality headsets use to limit and warn of movement outside of a certain space while immersed in the virtual reality world. In other words, the invention warns virtual reality headset users before they bump into walls or a table.
Let’s analyze a portion of this patent’s independent claim 1:
1. A method comprising:
establishing a virtual boundary for a virtual-world environment in reference to a real-world environment;
determining whether the virtual boundary requires a correction;
in response to determining that the virtual boundary requires the correction, providing an alert;
in response to the alert, receiving a request from a user to modify the virtual boundary;
Each line is considered a “claim element,” or “claim limitation.” When the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reviews a patent application for eligibility, or a patent is challenged or enforced in court, the primary focus will be on each claim’s limitations.
Let’s consider how this claim above would make it hard for Meta’s competitors to both make inventions, as well as obtain their own patent. Before we do so, let’s consider two things. First, a patent can bar others from making an invention that has identical elements. Second, you should know that to obtain a patent, an invention must satisfy the patentability requirements of being useful, new, and nonobvious.
The language in the beginning of the claim known as the preamble is important. For example, in the Meta claim just discussed, it says “a method comprising.” This word means that this claim covers at least what is listed, even if more is added. So, if a competitor had all the components of Meta’s claim, but added more, it would still be liable. Contrast this to language like “a method consisting,” which means that is made up of only what is listed. If Meta’s patent had used “consisting,” competitors that had additional elements would not be liable.
A simple example would be if an inventor made a pizza with ham, but used the preamble term “comprising,” and a competitor invented Hawaiian pizza. Hawaiian pizza includes ham but adds pineapple. The competitor’s pizza would not be considered new because of the inventor’s ham pizza, even though adding pineapple may fundamentally change the pie.
Photo By Herman Saksono licensed under the applicable terms of Creative Commons.
Meta’s claim, in the cropped portion above, in simplified terms claims a method for creating a virtual reality and correcting the virtual reality with an alert to the user, and the user modifying the virtual reality. If a competitor’s invention incorporates everything from Meta’s claim but takes some extra step, like adapting the space based on objects it detects in the room, it would be considered not “new.”
On the other hand, if a competitor’s invention has everything the same as Meta’s patent but doesn’t alert the user, the competitor’s invention would be “new.” This is because it lacks one of Meta’s claim limitations, the alert. It is difficult for competitors to make, use, or sell inventions without running into issues with Meta’s patents. Such strategic claim drafting not only protects Meta’s innovations but also serves as a deterrent to potential competitors, further solidifying its market position.
Why Meta is Still on Top
Meta isn’t the only company with diverse and voluminous patent holdings. Meta ranks on the Harrity Patent Analytics Patent 300® List at 41st, with 919 patents in 2023. The top 2 are household names such as Samsung Electronics Co. in first, and LG Corporation in second, with 9036 and 4170 patents in 2023 respectively.
Meta stands as a top tech company today. The impact of its broad yet detailed filing strategy, plus its high number of patents, plays a major role in bolstering business in this company’s transition from a social media hub to a tech giant. Inventorship and innovation are how Meta maintains its front running.
Daniel Henry
Associate Blogger
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2024