Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In the IPR proceeding IPR2025-00710 concerning U.S. Patent 10,825,294, Milestone Entertainment, LLC submitted a sur‑reply to Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s petition and reply. The patent owner focuses on claim 8, which recites a system where a virtual‑currency multiplier is variable over time. Milestone argues that the petitioner’s cited reference, Schneier143, does not disclose such a multiplier and that the petitioner’s new evidence and arguments were not part of the original petition, rendering them inadmissible. Consequently, Milestone contends that claim 8 should not be found unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Activision Blizzard, Inc. vs Milestone Entertainment, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc.vsPrytime Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Fluidmaster, Inc.vsDanco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al.vsPilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT challenges Pilot Intellectual Property's patent claims in an IPR, arguing the methods for recovering natural gas liquids are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of prior art references like Aycaguer and Soldati to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.