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
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8,347,350), arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate predictable network access control features.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Amazon.com Services LLCvsSmart Speaker LLC
A notice of decisions on institution was issued, denying several IPRs and granting others, while the status of Amazon's IPR against Smart Speaker remains pending.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.vsCarma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
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.