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
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)vsMaxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of InterDigital’s ’606 video‑encoding patent, asserting obviousness over Sekiguchi, VCEG‑AJ21, Xiong and H.264. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis linking each limitation to the prior art.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
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.