Short Summary
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-0708), Activision Blizzard challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,529,336 owned by Milestone Entertainment. The challenger contends that the patent’s method claims, covering electronic interaction, mandated and variable parameters, and related gaming features, are obvious in view of the Kelly683 system alone and the combination of Walker with Schneier143. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art, argues that no secondary considerations exist, and requests the Board to institute the review and deem all 19 challenged claims 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
Microsoft CorporationvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
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.