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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00710
Filing Date
25 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00565

Juniper Networks, IncvsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC

Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.

patentIPR2025-00425

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking termination of IPR 2025-00425.

patentIPR2024-00806

Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.

Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.

patentIPR2024-00579

Cox Communications, Inc.vsEntropic Communications LLC

Cox Communications challenges Entropic's '775 Patent in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.

patentIPR2024-00370

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call