US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 98 of 291 · 8,722 total
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Milestone Entertainment's patent on grounds of obviousness over prior art references, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claims 1 and others based on combinations of Kelly, Walker, and Schneier.
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, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' 8,585,476 patent covering location‑based AR games, asserting five §103 obviousness grounds based on prior art such as Jaszlics and Piekarski.
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 Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Meta Platforms against Mullen Industries regarding location-based gaming patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Jaszlics and Rallison.
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 of IPR for Activision Blizzard against Milestone Entertainment regarding a gaming patent. The dispute centers on whether the patented virtual currency system is obvious over prior art related to pay-per-use game credits.
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPR against Mullen Industries' patent 10967270, challenging five claims based on obviousness over Nakamura and Benini.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. Audio Pod’s counsel argues the denial was proper under the settled‑expectations doctrine and that no APA or due‑process violations exist. The Board has yet to rule on the review request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that barred its IPR petition on patent 9,319,720. The petition argues the rule violates the APA, the Constitution, and the AIA. The Board is asked to reverse the discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its adaptive streaming patent. The patent owner contends the Board misinterpreted claim language and improperly relied on prior‑art references that do not teach the required combination of fluidity, video quality, audio quality, and optimized decoding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Audio Pod defends the PTAB Acting Director’s use of a settled‑expectations standard to deny institution of Amazon’s IPR. The patent owner argues Amazon’s APA and due‑process challenges lack merit, urging denial of the Director Review request.
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.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Court decision.
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.
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.