US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 80 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Mar 26, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00711
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.
patent instituted · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply in an IPR challenging Activision Blizzard’s claim that claim 8 of U.S. Patent 10,825,294 is unpatentable. The patent owner asserts the petitioner’s evidence fails to show a variable multiplier for virtual currency over time and that new arguments are improper.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.
patent denied · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency gaming patent was rejected. The patent owner showed the prior art fails to disclose key claim elements and that no motivation to combine existed.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that claim 9 is anticipated or obvious, emphasizing that the cited Schneier reference does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier for virtual currency.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The patent owner argues that the petitioner’s two grounds, based on Schneier143 (alone and with Okita), do not disclose the variable‑over‑time multiplier of Claim 9. Accordingly, Milestone seeks a finding that Claim 9 is not unpatentable.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00702
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' VR gaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00739
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Activision Blizzard has filed a petition for inter partes review of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent No. 10,825,294, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior art relating to virtual currency in games. The petition relies on Schneier143 and Okita references and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Milestone Entertainment’s 10,650,635 patent covering virtual‑currency mechanisms in games, arguing obviousness over prior‑art patents Schneier143 and Okita.
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00703
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Court decision.
patent instituted · Mar 25, 2025
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00737
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent (8585476). The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Mar 25, 2025
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
The PTAB granted institution for Activision Blizzard's IPR against Milestone Entertainment regarding a gaming patent. The challenger successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art related to virtual currency and in-game economies.
patent instituted · Mar 25, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00703
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to challenge Mullen Industries' patent in an IPR proceeding concerning location-based gaming technology. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, leading to the institution of the review.
patent denied · Mar 24, 2025
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
· IPR2025-00775
Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.
patent · Mar 24, 2025
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
· IPR2025-00775
Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
patent · Mar 24, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00774
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.
patent · Mar 24, 2025
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.
patent · Mar 24, 2025
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
patent · Mar 24, 2025
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 24, 2025
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
patent denied · Mar 24, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00774
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
