Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLC

IPR2025-00713

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00713
Decision Date
26 March 2025
Filing Date
26 March 2025

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

patentIPR2025-01431

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent succeeded, finding all 20 claims obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman. The decision invalidates the entire patent.

patentIPR2025-00900

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.

patentIPR2025-00875

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.

patentIPR2025-00711

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.

patentIPR2025-01567

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.

Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”

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