US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 64 of 188 · 5,620 total
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned to challenge Milestone Entertainment's patent on grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Walker and Kelly. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable. This sets up a trial proceeding focused on gaming parameter modification systems.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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).
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
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.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
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.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
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.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
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.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.