Short Summary
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00713), Activision Blizzard, Inc. challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,501,607 owned by Milestone Entertainment, LLC. The petitioner alleges that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing four prior‑art references—Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143—that disclose each limitation individually or in combination. The petition details the lack of secondary considerations, argues that the issues have not been previously presented to the Board, and requests institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a). No claim constructions or secondary evidence are provided, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
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
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Petitioners challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 in a PTAB petition, arguing that several claims related to power management in optical networks are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely on combining industry standards (G.987.3, G.988) with technical disclosures from prior art references like Röger and Ghazisaidi.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.vsPolaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '590 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB found the claims were overly broad regarding polypeptide scope, requiring undue experimentation for a skilled artisan.
Western Digital Technologies et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
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.