US 10528960B2

Search results for the specific patent number

I searched for 10528960B2 literally (and its U.S. application No. 13/371,271). I also searched the CAFC/2026-docket context. Findings, with caution flags where the record is not about this exact patent:

• USPTO/Google Patents record for US10528960B2 — confirmed (patents.google.com/patent/US10528960B2/en; USPTO PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/82/1c/20/00df01824e35de/US10528960.pdf).
• Litigation involving this exact patent: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc., D. Utah, No. 2:21-cv-00283 (filed May 4, 2021), which asserts US10528960B2 among eight patents; stayed and administratively closed Aug. 25, 2025 pending "proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit." Google Patents also lists D. Utah No. 2:22-cv-00215 and D.N.J. No. 1:21-cv-10669 for this patent family.
• Important caveat — do not conflate similar numbers: The Federal Circuit's Feb. 3, 2026 obviousness affirmance in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nos. 24-1488/24-1549 (PTAB IPR2022-01009 and IPR2022-01090), involved US 8,670,961 and US 8,078,436 — related EagleView "Aerial Roof Estimation" family members, not US10528960B2. I found no CAFC 2026 decision specifically directed at claim(s) of 10528960B2 itself. If you need certainty on whether a CAFC appeal exists for this exact patent number, the stay order in 2:21-cv-00283 references pending Federal Circuit proceedings generally; I could not confirm from public search results that any such appeal concerns 10528960B2 as opposed to sibling patents.

Summary of US 10528960B2

Abstract (paraphrased from the patent): A system for the remote measurement of the size, geometry, pitch, and orientation of roof sections of a building, used to provide an estimate to repair or replace the roof or install equipment. It includes an aerial image file database showing aerial images of buildings in a designated area by address — typically oblique perspective views and top plan views — plus an image analysis and calibration feature enabling close estimation of roof-section size, geometry, and orientation. By inputting a customer's address, a company can determine roof-section size, geometry, pitch, and orientation and quickly provide an accurate estimate.

Independent claim (claim 1) — plain-language overview

Claim 1 (the only independent claim; claims 2–8 depend from it) recites a process in which a computer processor having a calibration module:

1. Receives at least two aerial image files of a building's roof taken from two different viewpoints, where at least one image file has associated calibration information;
2. Determines pitch and area of one or more roof sections via image analysis by constructing a 3D model, which requires:
   • calibrating at least one image using the calibration information to convert pixel distances into physical lengths;
   • identifying common reference points depicted in both images;
   • for all such reference points, locating each point in 3D space by triangulation — projecting a line from the first viewpoint through the point and a line from the second viewpoint through the same point and finding where the two lines intersect; and
   • determining the physical length between at least two of the resulting 3D reference points using the calibration;
3. Generates a roof report including the determined pitch and area of the roof sections, useful as a guide to repair or replace the roof, where "pitch" means vertical rise over horizontal run; and
4. Outputs the report containing the determined pitch.

Dependent claims — brief overview

• Claim 2: The report includes top plan views of the 3D model annotated with numerical values indicating slope, area, and edge lengths of at least two roof sections, using at least two different indicia to distinguish types of roof properties.
• Claim 3: The report includes top plan views of the 3D model with numerical values of slope, area, or edge length of at least one roof section.
• Claim 4: The report indicates whether each numerical value is a slope, area, or edge length at least in part by where the value is placed on the top plan view relative to the roof sections.
• Claim 5: At least two numerical values placed adjacent to corresponding roof-section edges indicate the lengths of those edges.
• Claim 6: At least one numerical value placed generally in the center of a roof section indicates the area of that section.
• Claim 7: The report indicates whether at least two numerical values are slope, area, or edge length at least in part via an annotation next to each value.
• Claim 8: The annotated values are roof slopes, and the annotation is an arrow adjacent to each slope value.

Sources

• Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10528960B2/en
• USPTO PDF (front page and claims): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/82/1c/20/00df01824e35de/US10528960.pdf
• PatSnap (Utah stay, 2:21-cv-00283, listing US10528960B2 among asserted patents): https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/
• CourtListener / VitalLaw / verdict.news (CAFC Feb. 3, 2026 decision, Nos. 24-1488/24-1549 — note: concerns US 8,670,961 and US 8,078,436, not 10528960B2): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10783305](/patent/10783305)/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/ ; https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-fed-cir-obviousness-affirmed-in-aerial-roof-measuring-dispute/ipm010a41168f4e3a49bb883a38912adca741

Uncertainty note: I could not verify a CAFC 2026 proceeding naming 10528960B2 specifically; my searches surfaced only the district-court stay referencing undifferentiated PTO/Federal Circuit proceedings and the CAFC opinion involving sibling patents with similar subject matter.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 10528960B2 across multiple sources.

I have solid leads. Let me now search for details on each specific case, including the third Utah case (2:22-cv-00215) and the New Jersey GAF case.

I now have three candidate cases. Let me verify the current status of the Utah GAF case (2:22-cv-00215) and confirm the '960 patent's role in each, plus check for any other litigation involving this specific patent number.

I have enough verified information from the live searches to answer. I was unable to run further confirmatory searches due to step limits, so I flag where status is uncertain.

Litigation involving US Patent 10528960B2

US 10,528,960 B2 ("Aerial roof estimation system and method," Eagle View Technologies Inc.) is the subject of two district-court litigations (the GAF matter was filed in New Jersey and later transferred to Utah, so it appears under two docket numbers). Both were brought by the same plaintiffs against competing aerial-imagery/roof-measurement providers. The Google Patents family record for the patent lists exactly these three dockets (2:22-cv-00215 D. Utah; 2:21-cv-00283 D. Utah; 1:21-cv-10669 D.N.J.), which corroborates the two underlying disputes.

1. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc.

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: Nearmap US, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central Division)
• Case No.: 2:21-cv-00283 (TS) — referenced in later filings as 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO
• Filing date: May 4, 2021
• Patents: Eight patents asserted, including US10528960B2 (also US8542880B2, US9514568B2, US10685149B2, US8593518B2, US8670961B2, US8209152B2, US9135737B2)
• Accused products: Nearmap MapBrowser and "Nearmap on OpenSolar"
• Presiding judge: Judge Ted Stewart
• Status: On August 25, 2025, the court (Judge Stewart) stayed all proceedings and administratively closed the case, pending completion of USPTO (PTAB/IPR) and Federal Circuit proceedings, with no ruling on infringement or validity. Per a live search result (EagleView press release dated May 29, 2026, on eagleview.com and mirrored by GlobeNewswire), EagleView and Nearmap subsequently reached a settlement resolving the pending Utah litigation and all outstanding disputes between the companies, on confidential terms. Note: that press-release date is after the "current date" given in your prompt (April 26, 2026); I report it as retrieved from the live search and flag the apparent date discrepancy rather than ignore it.

2. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials, LLC

This case has two docket numbers because it was transferred:

• Original filing: 1:21-cv-10669 (RMB/SAK), U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden vicinage)
• Filed: May 4, 2021 (same day as the Nearmap suit)
• Presiding judge (NJ): Judge Renee Marie Bumb; Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King
• Transfer: Granted on GAF's § 1404(a) motion (opinion issued March 2022); case transferred to Utah on/about March 28, 2022
• Post-transfer docket: 2:22-cv-00215 (TS-DAO), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah; Judge Ted Stewart; Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: GAF Materials, LLC
• Patents: Nine patents asserted, including US10528960B2 (also US8542880B2, US8078436B2, US8670961B2, US8209152B2, US9514568B2, US10685149B2, US8170840B2, US9129376B2). Court filings confirm the '960 patent (i.e., US10528960B2) was among the six patents shared with the Nearmap Utah action.
• Accused product: GAF "QuickMeasure" roof reports (white-labeled product generated via a partnership involving Nearmap US and Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin)
• Status: The case was actively litigated in Utah through at least mid-2025 — e.g., a July 25, 2025 order set a Markman/claim-construction hearing for August 26, 2025 (Doc. 354). GAF was permitted to add patent-misuse/inequitable-conduct defenses and a Sherman Act § 1 antitrust counterclaim (based in part on the confidential EagleView–Verisk/Xactware settlement). One litigation database (Ex Parte/RPX) lists the case status as "closed," but I found no confirmed final disposition (judgment, dismissal, or settlement) in the documents retrieved, so I cannot state the definitive outcome as of today. The case was still active as of the most recent docket documents I located (July 2025).

Other potentially related proceedings (not confirmed as direct '960 litigation)

• The patent family has been involved in related PTAB/IPR activity, but the IPRs I verified in search results (e.g., IPR2022-01009 against US8670961B2; IPR2022-01090 against US8078436B2; and the earlier IPR2016/2017 petitions against US8078436B2, US8818770B2, US8825454B2, US8209152B2) challenge other family members, not US10528960B2 itself. I found no IPR or ITC proceeding specifically against the '960 patent.
• The older Xactware/Verisk action (Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-07025, D.N.J.) ended in a 2019 jury verdict and later settlement, but it was filed in 2015 — before US10528960B2 issued (January 7, 2020) — so the '960 patent was not part of that case. Court filings in the GAF matter confirm the Xactware trial covered only the '436, '840, and '376 patents.

Bottom line: Known litigation directly involving US10528960B2 consists of (1) the Nearmap Utah action (2:21-cv-00283) — stayed Aug. 2025 and reported settled per a May 2026 press release — and (2) the GAF action, filed in New Jersey (1:21-cv-10669, May 4, 2021) and transferred to Utah (2:22-cv-00215), which was active through 2025 with no confirmed final disposition found. If you need the definitive current status of the GAF case, a PACER query on 2:22-cv-00215 (D. Utah) or the Unified Patents litigation portal would be the authoritative next step, which I could not complete within the search limit.

I'll research whether any AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) have been filed against US10528960B2, cross-checking the structured USPTO ODP data against public PTAB records.

The search surfaced important context: US10528960B2 is one of eight patents Eagle View asserted against Nearmap US in Utah (2:21-cv-00283), which was stayed in August 2025 "pending proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit." That implies PTAB challenges exist that the ODP structured data hasn't captured. Let me dig for specific IPR numbers and any Nearmap/Unified Patents petitions against this patent.

Key development found: the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness findings against EagleView in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. 2026-02-03) — but that appeal concerned the related '961 and '436 patents, not 10528960B2. I need to determine whether 10528960B2 itself was ever challenged. Let me search the PTAB public databases and case-tracking services directly.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings against US10528960B2: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured data returns no IPR/PGR/CBM for this patent, and web research confirms the same: I could not locate any Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method proceeding filed against patent number US10528960B2 (application 13/371,271) itself. There are no proceedings to categorize by status (no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials).

Bottom line for a defendant: None of the eight claims of US10528960B2 has ever been tested, narrowed, or canceled at the PTAB. If a demand letter cites claims 1–8, no PTAB decision gives you a ready-made invalidity verdict on this specific patent. That said, this patent sits in a heavily litigated EagleView portfolio, and sibling patents sharing the same specification have recently been knocked down at the PTAB and on appeal (details below) — that is a strategic signal and a prior-art roadmap, but it is not a claim-level determination against US10528960B2, and I do not present it as one.

---

PTAB proceedings against US10528960B2

None. I am not inventing proceeding numbers. The only way to state this accurately is plainly:

• USPTO ODP (canonical source in this prompt): no AIA trial proceedings returned for US10528960B2.
• Web research (as of 2026-09-05): no IPR/PGR/CBM petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or settlement naming US10528960B2 surfaced. Note one near-miss to avoid confusion: IPR2024-01072 (Luxottica v. E-Vision Optics) involves U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960 — a different, unrelated patent whose number visually resembles 10,528,960. It is not this patent.

Related portfolio context — proceedings against sibling EagleView patents (NOT US10528960B2)

These are provided for context only and must not be conflated with a challenge to this patent. They involve EagleView patents that share the "aerial roof estimation" family and were asserted alongside US10528960B2 in the same district-court case:

• IPR2022-00734 — Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Patent 9,135,737): instituted 2022-11-03; FWD 2023-10-27 found no challenged claims unpatentable (crediting patent owner's secondary considerations as "decisive"); on Nearmap's Director review, the Director vacated and remanded (decision ~2024-07-15); on remand the PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (reported 2024-07-17). Not this patent.
• IPR2022-01009 — Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Patent 8,670,961, filed 2022-05-10, instituted 2022-12-14, FWD 2023-12-14): claims found unpatentable as obvious over Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook. Not this patent.
• *Federal Circuit — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. 2026-02-03, nonprecedential, Judge Chen):* affirmed PTAB obviousness findings against claims of U.S. Patents 8,670,961 and 8,078,436, rejecting EagleView's argument that "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" require a particular accuracy level. Neither patent is US10528960B2. (Opinion: https://business.cch.com/ipld/EagleViewTechnologiesNearmapFedCir20260203.pdf; coverage: https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/03/federal-circuit-upholds-ptab-finding-aerial-imaging-patents-obvious/)

Why this matters: the stay order in the parallel Utah case (below) references "pending proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit" — those are the sibling-patent IPRs and the 24-1488 appeal, not a challenge to US10528960B2.

---

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All eight claims of US10528960B2 (independent claim 1 plus dependent claims 2–8) are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim has been canceled; no claim has been sustained in an IPR; the patent is presumptively valid and, per the USPTO record, remains Active with an anticipated expiration of 2028-04-17.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has been filed on US10528960B2, no petitioner is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to this patent, and all § 102/§ 103 prior-art grounds remain available to any new petitioner. However, § 315(b)'s one-year bar likely applies to Nearmap US: EagleView sued Nearmap on 2021-05-04 in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00283 (D. Utah), asserting US10528960B2 among eight patents (see https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/utd/2:21-cv-00283/doc/analysis/274). Nearmap's window to petition against this patent expired roughly 2022-05-04 — and it evidently did not use it for this patent, even while filing IPRs on sibling patents ('961, '436, '737) in the same window. That choice is telling: of the eight asserted patents, US10528960B2's claim 1 is the one with the most technically distinctive limitations (explicit multi-view triangulation to locate reference points in 3D space, intersection of projected lines from two viewpoints), which may have looked harder to knock down than the sibling claims. A defendant not in privity with Nearmap who is separately sued on this patent faces no § 315(b) bar and no IPR estoppel, and can still file.

Pattern signals. Nearmap ran a coordinated multi-IPR campaign against the EagleView "aerial roof estimation" family in 2021–2024, with real success on remand and at the CAFC (claims of '961/'436 held obvious; '737 invalidated on remand) — but it conspicuously did not challenge US10528960B2. EagleView, for its part, has repeatedly and successfully defended its portfolio at the PTAB historically (e.g., repelling the Xactware/Verisk wave of roughly 13 IPRs in 2016–2017, followed by a 2019 CAFC affirmance), and is currently litigating this patent through the Utah stay. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents — which appears here only as a litigation-data source) has filed against this patent. The practical read: this is a patent that has survived four-plus years of active assertion and parallel portfolio-wide IPR warfare without ever being directly challenged — either because challengers judged its claim 1 too robust, or because of settlement/strategic economics. The absence of a challenge is itself informative but is not a merits determination.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the "no PTAB activity" finding on the docket before relying on it. Query USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the Patent Center file wrapper for 13/371,271 to confirm zero AIA trials, and check the 2:21-cv-00283 docket (stayed 2025-08-25 by Judge Ted Stewart pending PTO/Federal Circuit proceedings — see the stay order text at https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/). Verify that every "pending proceeding" referenced there concerns a sibling patent, not US10528960B2.
2. If you are the Nearmap defendant (or in privity): you are almost certainly § 315(b)-barred from petitioning on this patent now. Your PTAB lane is closed; focus on claim construction, the § 101/§ 112 record, and on leveraging the CAFC's 2026-02-03 obviousness reasoning in 24-1488 only by analogy (it is a nonprecedential disposition on different claims).
3. If you are a new, non-privy defendant: the prior-art combination validated by the CAFC (Littleworth's analytical-photogrammetry 3D modeling + Linder's digital photogrammetry + Middlebrook's AutoCAD) is a proven roadmap against the family's "determine pitch from aerial images" limitations — but US10528960B2's claim 1 adds an explicit triangulation-by-line-intersection limitation that the '961/'436 FWDs did not squarely address. Have counsel map that limitation to the art before filing; a § 103 petition on this claim is a genuinely open question, not a foregone conclusion. Confirm you are outside the § 315(b) window (one year from service) and be mindful of the USPTO's 2025–2026 Director-review/institution framework (discretionary denials now decided by the Director, with a stricter proposed stipulation rule).
4. Monitor the sibling litigations — the remanded '737 proceeding and any further CAFC activity could shift how the Utah court views the whole family when the stay lifts, and EagleView's claim charting in 2:21-cv-00283 (available at the Ex Parte link above) shows how it maps US10528960B2's triangulation language onto Nearmap's products.

Caveat on sources: this analysis rests on the ODP structured data (canonical, no proceedings) plus web research conducted 2026-09-05. PTAB filings are sometimes indexed late; if you need absolute certainty before a deadline, pull the PTAB E2E search yourself — but as of today, the honest answer to "what happened at the PTAB on US10528960B2?" is: nothing has happened — yet.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10528960B2, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center data and cross-references.

Let me try to surface actual reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record for these specific assignments.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10528960B2

Critical sourcing note up front: The authoritative record available to me is the patent's legal-events file as published on Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10528960B2/en), which lists each recorded assignment event by date, conveyance type, assignor, and assignee. That record does not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record. I ran targeted searches for reel/frame and correspondent data and could not retrieve them. I will not invent reel/frame numbers or attorney names. Where the requested field is unavailable, I say so explicitly and flag it as the item to pull directly from the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by patent number 10528960). Every entry below is grounded in the published legal-events record.

---

Inventors

• Founder-inventor pattern, not employee-inventor pattern. Both named inventors are the founders of the original assignee (Wikipedia/EagleView corporate history: "The company was founded by Chris Pershing and Dave Carlson in 2008"). This matters for the ownership analysis: the inventors were the assignors of record to their own company, so this is a standard founder-to-company assignment, not the "inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale precursor.
• Name-literalism flag: the patent lists "Dave P. Carlson," while litigation filings and Wikipedia refer to "David P. Carlson." Same individual on the face of the record; flagged because the task requires literal treatment of identifiers.
• Departure dates: not determinable from the assignment record. No recorded assignment in this chain reflects an inventor transfer after the initial 2012 assignment. I found no evidence of either inventor leaving EagleView, and I will not speculate — the corporate history surfaces EagleView's executives (e.g., CEO Chris Barrow in 2015; CEO Piers Dormeyer in 2026) but nothing on the founders' tenure. Unclear, not a finding.

---

Original assignee

Entity on the issued patent: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (recorded in the assignment documents with the two-word spelling "Eagle View Technologies, Inc."; the operating brand and current Google Patents assignee-of-record is rendered "EagleView Technologies Inc.").

• Products embodying the claims — YES, and acknowledged in the patent's own field of use. The specification describes the commercial system (FIGS. 1–2 and the FIGS. 5A–5F report pages) that became EagleView's core product: address-keyed aerial imagery → photogrammetric measurement → a roof report with per-section pitch, area, and edge dimensions. EagleView's own corporate materials describe it as the provider that "became the first remote aerial measurement service in history," processing "tens of thousands of roof measurement reports per day" (Clearlake investment release, June 27, 2018). This is a shipped, revenue-generating product, not a paper patent.
• Primary line of business: aerial (oblique/orthogonal) imagery capture, 3-D measurement software, property data analytics, and GIS solutions sold to insurance, construction, solar, government, and utility customers. EagleView reported "more than 300 patents" and a 60-petabyte imagery library.
• Ownership/corporate chain (relevant because it explains the lien record):
  • 2008 — EagleView Technologies founded (Bothell, WA).
  • Jan 2013 — Pictometry International Corp. (Rochester, NY, est. 2000) merged with EagleView Technologies, both becoming wholly-owned subsidiaries of EagleView Technology Corporation (a holdco). Spectrum Equity was the Pictometry investor driving the merger.
  • Jan 14, 2014 — Verisk Analytics agreed to acquire EagleView Technology Corp. for ~$650M. The FTC challenged the deal (complaint dated Dec. 16, 2014); the acquisition did not close.
  • July 15, 2015 — EagleView acquired by Vista Equity Partners (LBO). This directly triggers the Morgan Stanley lien filings in the timeline.
  • 2017 — Pictometry and EagleView consolidated under the single EagleView brand; EagleView acquires OmniEarth (machine-learning property analytics). OmniEarth then appears in the lien/release records.
  • 2018 — Clearlake Capital Group invests alongside Vista (announced June 27, 2018; closed Q3 2018) — which explains the August 2018 HPS/Morgan Stanley re-fi.
• Current status: operating. Privately held, PE-backed (Vista Equity Partners since 2015; Clearlake since 2018). No bankruptcy, no assignment for the benefit of creditors, no Chapter 7/11 found in connection with EagleView or Pictometry. EagleView remains the plaintiff of record in active/portfolio litigation (see prior sections of this analysis).
• Cross-reference to SEC filings: not applicable to the assignee. EagleView is private and files no 10-K/8-K. The relevant SEC-side context comes from its adversary (Verisk, NASDAQ:VRSK) and from court exhibits quoting the merger agreements.

---

Assignment timeline

All dates below are recordation dates as published in the legal-events record; the execution dates and reel/frame numbers are not exposed in the retrieved record and must be confirmed on the Assignment Center. Correspondent of record: not available in the retrieved record for any entry. There are 10 recorded post-filing assignment events (1 ownership assignment + 6 security-interest grants/releases in the lien chain, plus 3 additional lien events), i.e. no ownership change beyond the original founder assignment.

• Executed date not in record / recorded 2012-09-20 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Chris Pershing; Dave P. Carlson (individually)
  • Assignee: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record — verify at Assignment Center (this is the one entry where the correspondent will be a prosecution/transactional firm rather than a lien agent)
  • Context: Founder-to-company acquisition of title; routine pre-issuance assignment perfecting the company's ownership of the continuation application 13/371,271.

• Recorded 2015-07-20 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — "SECOND LIEN PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT"
  • Assignor: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — collateral grant in the Vista Equity Partners LBO financing (Vista acquisition closed ~July 15, 2015; recorded five days later). Portfolio-wide, not patent-specific.

• Recorded 2015-07-20 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — "FIRST LIEN PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT"
  • Assignor: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — companion first-lien grant to the same agent on the same date (same LBO financing).

• Recorded 2017-09-22 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Release — "RELEASE OF SECOND LIEN SECURITY INTEREST"
  • Assignor (releasing secured party): MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Assignee (released grantors): PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.; EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OMNIEARTH, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — lien release/refinancing (second lien cleared; OmniEarth, acquired 2017, now appears in the collateral pool).

• Recorded 2018-08-14 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — "SECOND LIEN PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT"
  • Assignor: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — new private-credit second lien replacing the released Morgan Stanley second lien, coinciding with the Clearlake Capital investment (announced June 2018).

• Recorded 2018-08-23 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — "FIRST LIEN PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT"
  • Assignor: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — restated/successor first lien to the same agent in the August 2018 recapitalization.

• Recorded 2018-08-29 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Release — "RELEASE OF FIRST LIEN SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS"
  • Assignor (releasing secured party): MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee (released grantors): PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.; EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OMNIEARTH, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — lien release paired with the 2018-08-23 replacement first lien (same six-day refinancing cycle as 2015).

• Recorded 2025-03-28 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — "FIRST LIEN PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT"
  • Assignor: EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — recorded grant/restatement of the first lien (see the compressed three-week sequence immediately below).

• Recorded 2025-04-09 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Release — "RELEASE OF FIRST LIEN SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS"
  • Assignor (releasing secured party): MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Assignee (released grantors): EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.; OMNIEARTH, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — lien release (12 days after the prior first-lien recording).

• Recorded 2025-04-14 — Reel/frame not available in retrieved record

  • Conveyance: Release — "RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor (releasing secured party): HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC
  • Assignee (released grantor): EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: not in retrieved record
  • Context: Securitization — lien release. Both recorded secured parties (Morgan Stanley and HPS) released in April 2025, leaving no active recorded security interest in the '960 patent as of the latest entry. Whether this reflects a payoff, a new unrecorded facility, or a corporate transaction is not determinable from the assignment record — flag for verification.

Non-assignment records excluded (for completeness): The "Priority to US13/371,271 (2012-02-10)," "Priority to US13/954,832 (2013-07-30)," and "Priority to US16/706,047 (2019-12-06)" entries are family/priority events, not assignments, and the "Assigned to EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC." line under the 2012-09-20 entry is the same assignment already listed. The patent front page also carries a terminal disclaimer, which is a prosecution event (not an assignment) and is why the whole family is listed as expiring 2028-04-17 despite this being a 2012 continuation.

Cross-reference — Google Patents / PEDS / Unified Patents: The Google Patents legal-events record listed above is the same data mirrored by PEDS/ODP. The Unified Patents litigation portal lists the three district-court dockets for this family (D. Utah 2:22-cv-00215; D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283; D.N.J. 1:21-cv-10669) but reflects no change of assignee — confirming the patent has remained with EagleView throughout the litigations. No RPX or Unified Patents asserter-directory match was found for any entity in this chain.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10528960B2
    2007 : Provisional filed by Pershing and Carlson
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2012 : Assignment to Eagle View Technologies
         : Continuation application filed
    2015 : Vista acquires EagleView
         : Morgan Stanley first and second liens
    2017 : Second lien released
    2018 : Clearlake invests in EagleView
         : HPS takes second lien
         : Morgan Stanley first lien restated
    2020 : Patent issues as US10528960B2
    2021 : Suits filed v Nearmap and GAF
    2025 : First lien recorded then released
         : HPS secured interest released
         : Nearmap case stayed
    2026 : Nearmap settlement reported

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT

No operating-to-licensing-LLC transfer exists in this chain. The single ownership assignment (recorded 2012-09-20) runs inventors → EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an operating company. No successor entity bears "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures," and no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC ever appears as assignee. Every post-2012 entry is a security-interest grant or release, in which the equity owner never changes — the lenders (Morgan Stanley, HPS) take collateral, not title.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT

No assignee in the chain matches any of the listed NPE directories (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities, or any Unified/RPX high-frequency plaintiff). EagleView Technologies, Inc. is an operating imagery/analytics company, and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding and HPS Investment Partners are lenders, not asserters. (EagleView is a frequent plaintiff, but it asserts in its own name against direct competitors — the definitional opposite of the directory match this signal tests for. See prior sections for EagleView v. Nearmap and EagleView v. GAF.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data not available)

The retrieved record does not expose the correspondent of record for any entry, so I cannot test recurrence — and I will not guess a firm name. This is the single highest-value field left unverified. Action item: pull the 2012-09-20 assignment and the six lien entries at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and capture the correspondent for each; if the same lien-agent firm recurs across 2015/2018/2025, that is normal secured-lending practice (not an NPE tell), whereas a single recurring patent-specific attorney across ownership links would warrant the flag. On the current record, this signal is unresolved.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT

No sequence of consecutive ownership assignments through chained entities exists. There have been zero ownership transfers since 2012 across 14 years. The 2015/2018/2025 entries are three independent financing cycles (2015 LBO → 2017 release, 2018 recap → release, 2025 release), each an ordinary lender rotation, not equity cascading through LLCs. No two assignees share a correspondent address or common principals on the available record.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT

No assignment is dated within 6 months (or even 6 years) before the first suits. The first EagleView suits naming this patent were filed 2021-05-04 (D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283 and D.N.J. 1:21-cv-10669); the last ownership assignment was 2012-09-20, and the nearest security filing was 2018-08-23. No transfer was arranged to manufacture standing or set venue. (Note the '960 patent issued 2020-01-07, so it could not have been asserted in the 2015 Xactware action — confirming the prior sections' point.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT

EagleView has not filed Chapter 7/11, and no patent sale in a bankruptcy proceeding appears. The lien history is the opposite of distress: a $650M attempted strategic sale to Verisk (2014, abandoned after FTC challenge), a $14B+ AUM private-equity buyout by Vista (2015), and a further Clearlake Capital growth investment (2018). Notably, both recorded secured parties released their interests in April 2025 rather than foreclosing — i.e., EagleView paid down/refinanced, it did not default. No Kodak/Nortel-style sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT (but the closest call in this chain)

Privateering requires an operating company to hand a patent to a separate NPE to assert on its behalf. Here the title-holder never leaves the operating family: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. is both the manufacturer of the accused-against product (EagleView reports) and the plaintiff. Related EagleView affiliates (Pictometry International Corp., OmniEarth, Inc.) are subsidiaries in the same corporate family, not third-party shells — and they appear only as collateral grantors, not as title holders. The PE ownership (Vista, Clearlake) and the ~12-year enforcement campaign against competitors (Xactware/Verisk, Nearmap, GAF) make this an aggressive operating-company assertion model, which is a different pattern from privateering and should not be mislabeled as one. No SEC/Press/Patent Progress evidence of an NPE funded or directed by EagleView was found.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT

The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (with the 2025 releases simply removing lenders). The patent is live and presumptively enforceable, not neutralized.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The chain contains exactly one ownership transfer — the founder assignment to EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. recorded 2012-09-20 — and the title-holder has never changed since; every later record (Morgan Stanley first/second liens 2015-07-20; HPS second lien 2018-08-14; Morgan Stanley first lien 2018-08-23 and 2025-03-28; HPS/Morgan Stanley releases 2017-09-22, 2018-08-29, 2025-04-09, 2025-04-14) is a collateral grant or clearing by an operating company's lenders, not a transfer to an NPE. The assignee sells products practicing the claims (EagleView's address-keyed roof-measurement reports, per the specification's own FIGS. 1–2 and 5A–5F, and per EagleView's corporate materials) and asserts the patent in its own name against direct competitors (Nearmap; GAF; historically Xactware/Verisk). Signals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all not present; only signal 3 (repeat correspondent) is unresolved for want of the correspondent field.

The one open item that could change the picture: if the April 2025 release sequence coincides with an unreported corporate transaction or a new, later-recorded secured facility, the ownership picture could shift — verify via https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent 10528960) and confirm whether any post-2025-04-14 assignment exists in the paper record that Google Patents has not yet indexed.

Caveats: (i) Reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record data were not retrievable from the available sources and are expressly left blank rather than fabricated; (ii) the May 29, 2026 EagleView–Nearmap settlement press release is consistent with today's date (2026-09-21) and does not affect the assignment chain (settlement does not transfer title); (iii) no RPX/Unified asserter-directory match was found, but those directories track plaintiffs, and their absence is consistent — not determinative — of the verdict above.

I'll research US10528960B2 and its cited prior art systematically. Let me start by verifying the patent record and its key citations.

I have the core patent record. Now let me verify details on the most relevant cited references that predate the April 17, 2007 priority date.

I've reached the tool-call limit, so I'll now provide the full analysis based on the authoritative patent text (provided in the task) and the verified search results above.

---

Prior-Art Analysis: US 10528960 B2 ("Aerial Roof Estimation System and Method")

1. Verification of the target patent (US 10528960 B2)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10528960B2/en ; USPTO PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/82/1c/20/00df01824e35de/US10528960.pdf

Claim 1 (verbatim key limitations): receiving plural aerial image files of a building roof — a first from a first viewpoint and a second from a second viewpoint different from the first, with calibration information associated with at least one file; determining pitch and area of roof section(s) by image analysis comprising constructing a 3D model by (i) calibrating at least one image file using the calibration information to convert pixel distances into physical length, (ii) identifying common reference points in the two files, (iii) triangulating each reference point by projecting a first line from the first viewpoint through the point and a second line from the second viewpoint through the same point and determining their intersection, and (iv) determining physical length between reference points in 3D space based on the calibration; generating a roof report including the pitch and area useful as a guide to repair/replace the roof, pitch being vertical rise over horizontal run; and outputting the report.

Dependent claims 2–8 all add report-display detail to claim 1 (top-plan views of the 3D model annotated with numerical values of slope/area/edge-length; different indicia for different property types (claim 2); placement-based meaning: values by edges = lengths (claims 4–5), values centered in a roof section = area (claim 6); annotation-based meaning (claim 7); arrow annotation = slope (claim 8)).

§ 102 framework used below: Because the effective priority date is April 17, 2007, only references that were publicly available before that date (pre-AIA §§ 102(a)/(b)) — or whose U.S. applications were on file before that date by another (§ 102(e)) — can anticipate. References that post-date 2007-04-17 (e.g., US 8,401,222 B2; US 8,170,840 B2; US 8,209,152 B2) cannot be § 102 anticipatory references against this priority chain, regardless of being printed on the face of the patent.

---

2. Most relevant cited prior art, with § 102 claim mapping

The Google Patents record lists roughly 151 patent citations on the face of 10528960B2 (plus family citations). Not all are § 102-relevant to the 8 claims; many are background/classification art. Below are the most relevant references, grouped by proximity to the claimed subject matter. "Full citation" includes number, title, assignee/inventor, and dates.

A. Roof-specific measurement/estimation systems (closest art)

A1. US 7,728,833 B2 — "Method for generating a three-dimensional model of a roof structure" (Sarnoff Corp.; Verma, Kumar, Hsu, Sawhney)

• Priority: 2004-08-18 (Prov. 60/602,354); filed 2005-08-18 (published as US 2006/0061566 A1 on 2006-03-23); granted 2010-06-01.
• Description: Automatically generates 3D models of roof structures from aerial LIDAR point clouds. Fits planes to roof regions (RANSAC), builds prismatic roof shapes, extrudes to ground, and can register electro-optical imagery to the model. Discloses roof-plane modeling (analogous to "roof sections"), pitch/slope geometry derivable from plane angles, and 3D model construction.
• § 102 mapping: This is the closest single roof-3D-modeling reference and is squarely prior art (published 2006-03-23, well before 2007-04-17). It covers the "constructing a three-dimensional model of one or more roof sections" concept of claim 1, but it builds the model from LIDAR point clouds, not by triangulating common reference points in two aerial photographs taken from different viewpoints, and it does not generate a "roof report … useful as a guide to repair or replace the roof" with pitch (rise/run) and area. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; strongest against the 3D-model/roof-section element of claim 1. In combination it is powerful § 103 art for claim 1.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7728833B2](/patent/US7728833B2)/en ; PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/55/ca/94/94eb4d672a7efa/US7728833.pdf

A2. US 7,424,133 B2 — "Method and apparatus for capturing, geolocating and measuring oblique images" (Pictometry International Corp.; Schultz, Giuffrida, Gray, Mondello)

• Priority: 2002-11-08 (Prov. 60/425,275); filed 2003-11-05; granted 2008-09-09 (EP counterpart EP1418402A1 published 2004).
• Description: Computerized photogrammetry of oblique aerial images. Stores geo-referenced oblique images with positional data; software measures distances, areas, relative elevation, and height differences between user-selected points; discloses a "ground plane" of facets conforming to terrain and later (family) versions compute measurements over that ground plane.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (priority 2002). Discloses aerial images + calibration/positional data + area/height measurements of buildings from oblique imagery — overlapping claim 1's "receiving aerial image files," "calibration information," and "area … of roof sections" concepts. Does not disclose two-viewpoint line-projection triangulation to reconstruct roof sections, nor a pitch/area roof report for repair/replacement. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; strong on claim 1's image-acquisition/calibration/area-measurement elements.
• Sources: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[7424133](/patent/7424133).html ; EP1418402A1 PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e9/ac/11/5309d5e01ceea5/EP1418402A1.pdf

A3. WO 2000/029806 A2 — "Method for measuring the surfaces of a house roof" (Friedhelm Gante)

• Priority: 1998-11-06; published 2000-05-25.
• Description: Method for measuring roof surfaces (house roofs), a directly on-point predecessor in the roof-measurement-from-imagery field.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Without the full text I cannot confirm whether it discloses every limitation of claim 1 (two-view triangulation, calibration to physical length, pitch+area roof report). It is cited as one of the earliest roof-surface-from-imagery references and is most relevant to claim 1's roof-section area measurement. Potentially anticipates: claim 1 only if it inherently/expressly discloses all limitations — at minimum a § 103 anchor. Confidence: medium — content not fully verified in available search results.

A4. DE 198 57 667 A1 / EP 1 010 966 B1 — "Process for creating a three-dimensional object description" (Aerowest Photogrammetrie H. Benninghoff / Aerowest GmbH)

• Priority: 1998-12-15; DE publication 2000-08-17; EP granted 2002-10-23.
• Description: Photogrammetric generation of three-dimensional object (building/roof) descriptions from imagery.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Relevant to claim 1's "constructing a three-dimensional model." Potentially anticipates: claim 1 only if all triangulation/calibration/report limitations are disclosed — at minimum § 103 art for claim 1. Confidence: medium.

A5. US 5,983,010 A — "Method of describing a building structure" (Jeffrey Earl Murdock; Peter James Moffat)

• Filed: 1997-05-27 (CIP of 08/590,910, filed 1996-01-24); granted 1999-11-09.
• Description: Template-based method of describing a building (core + additions) to calculate areas of surfaces and volumes, producing building descriptions usable for estimates. Input is manual/structured data entry, not aerial-image photogrammetry.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Relevant to report/estimate-data output, but lacks aerial images, two-view triangulation, calibration, and pitch computation of claim 1. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 (no image-based 3D reconstruction); useful § 103 background for area-report generation.
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[5983010](/patent/5983010)-A ; PDF http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/f0/06/bd897c1ef93456/US5983010.pdf

A6. US 5,379,105 A — "Roof surface measuring apparatus" (Asahi Kogaku Kogyo K.K.)

• Priority: 1991-10-24; granted 1995-01-03.
• Description: Apparatus/method for measuring roof surface dimensions/area (as the title indicates, a roof-measurement instrument).
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Relevant conceptually to roof measurement, but it is a measuring apparatus (not an aerial two-image triangulation + report system on the record before me). Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone on the available record. Confidence: low-medium (full disclosure not retrieved).

A7. US 2006/0232605 A1 — "Housing-related commodity sales support system …" (Matsushita Electric Works, priority 1999-11-02; published 2006-10-19)

• Description: Computer/network sales-support system for housing-related commodities (roofing/solar-type products), using address/location-linked data and image presentation to support a quote — analogous to the business-method portion of the specification (FIGS. 1–2).
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (priority 1999). Relevant to the address→image→estimate flow but not the photogrammetric 3D reconstruction of claim 1. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone.

B. 3D reconstruction / photogrammetry from imagery (art against claim 1's reconstruction steps)

B1. US 2,791,151 A — "Method of and apparatus for aerotriangulation with convergent photography" (John T. Pennington)

• Filed 1953-05-06; granted 1957-05-07.
• Description: Classic aerotriangulation using convergent (two-viewpoint) photography — i.e., the fundamental ray-projection/intersection technique for locating points in 3D from two photographs, exactly the triangulation concept recited in claim 1 ("projecting a first line originating from the first viewpoint … and a second line … determining an intersection").
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (1957). It is the best single reference for the triangulation sub-element of claim 1 but predates and does not disclose roof-pitch/area reporting, roof repair/replacement report output, or the claimed processor/calibration-module context. Potentially anticipates: claim 1 only if the triangulation limitation is read at a high level of generality and all other limitations are deemed inherent — in practice, strongest § 103 support against the reconstruction step. Confidence: medium (no full text retrieved in this session).

B2. US 6,333,749 B1 — "Method and apparatus for image assisted modeling of three-dimensional scenes" (Adobe Systems)

• Filed 1998-04-17; granted 2001-12-25.
• Description: Image-assisted 3D scene modeling from photographs, including calibration-type operations — relevant to claim 1's "constructing a three-dimensional model … calibrating … convert a distance in pixels … into a physical length."
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Discloses model construction from photos with calibration, but not the roof-report/pitch/area-for-repair output. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; § 103 art for claim 1's model-construction branch.

B3. US 2008/0089610 A1 (Geotango International; family of US 7,376,284 B2, Microsoft) — "System, computer program and method for 3D object measurement, modeling and mapping from single imagery"

• Filed 2004-01-16; published 2008-04-17.
• Description: Calibrating imagery and measuring/modeling 3D objects from photographs; pixel-to-physical-distance calibration concepts.
• § 102 mapping: Because it was filed 2004-01-16 (before 2007-04-17), it can qualify under pre-AIA § 102(e) even though published 2008-04-17. Discloses calibration and measurement from imagery but not the claimed two-image triangulation + pitch/area roof-report combination. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone.

B4. US 7,137,551 B2 — "Semi-automatic reconstruction method of 3-D building models using building outline segments" (National Central University, Taiwan)

• Filed 2002-02-07; granted 2006-11-07.
• Description: Semi-automatic 3D building reconstruction (roof outlines → 3D models) from aerial imagery.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Relevant to claim 1's 3D model construction and roof-section geometry. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone (no roof-report pitch/area output disclosed on the available record).

B5. US 7,509,241 B2 — "Method and apparatus for automatically generating a site model" (Sarnoff Corp.)

• Priority 2001-07-06; granted 2009-03-24.
• Description: Automatic 3D site/building model generation from imagery, including buildings and roof structure geometry.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Relevant to model generation. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone.

B6. US 7,752,018 B2 — "Geospatial modeling system providing building roof type identification features and related methods" (Harris Corp.)

• Priority 2006-07-20; granted 2010-07-06.
• Description: Identifies building roof types within geospatial 3D models (gable, hip, flat, etc.).
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (priority 2006-07-20, before 2007-04-17). Discloses roof-type/section geometry classification in models. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; relevant to roof-section pitch/area determination in claim 1.

C. Roof/estimate-related references (art against claim 1's report/output & use context)

C1. US 7,373,303 B2 — "Methods and systems for estimating building reconstruction costs" (E2Value, Inc.)

• Priority 2001-12-10; granted 2008-05-13 (published US 2003/0115163 A1, 2003-06-19).
• Description: Computer estimation of building reconstruction costs from building-characteristic data — the "estimate to repair/replace" context of claim 1's report.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Lacks the aerial two-view triangulation and calibration analysis. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; § 103 art for the "roof report useful as a guide to repair or replace the roof" concept.

C2. US 7,305,983 B1 — "Assessment of solar energy potential on existing buildings in a region" (University of Hawai'i)

• Priority 2003-07-08; granted 2007-12-11.
• Description: Uses aerial imagery/LIDAR-type data to assess rooftop solar potential — roof plane area, slope/orientation from imagery for a region.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (priority 2003). Discloses determining roof-plane geometry/area from aerial data for a commercial purpose, though not the two-image triangulation/pitch+area roof report. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone.

C3. US 2006/0137736 A1 — "Support system and program for installing photovoltaic power generator" (Sharp K.K.)

• Priority 2004-12-28; published 2006-06-29.
• Description: Determines roof slope/shape/orientation from images (oblique/plan) to support PV-installation estimates — closely matching the specification's solar-installation use case.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone on the available record, but relevant § 103 art for roof-section pitch determination and estimate output.

C4. US 2006/0265287 A1 / EP 1 619 610 A1 — "Solar cell ordering system" (Sharp K.K.)

• Priority 2003-04-22; published 2005-11/2006-01.
• Description: Roof-type/shape data → solar-cell system proposal/order — the "address → roof geometry → equipment estimate" flow.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone.

C5. US 7,873,238 B2 — "Mosaic oblique images and methods of making and using same" (Pictometry International Corp.)

• Filed 2006-08-30; granted 2011-01-18.
• Description: Mosaic of oblique aerial images enabling viewing of the same structure from multiple viewpoints.
• § 102 mapping: Prior art (filing 2006-08-30). Relevant to claim 1's "plurality of aerial image files … first viewpoint … second viewpoint" element. Potentially anticipates: none of claims 1–8 alone; supports claim 1's multi-view limitation.

D. References that postdate the 2007-04-17 priority date (NOT § 102 prior art, but printed on the face)

The following appear in the citation list but were filed/published after 2007-04-17 and therefore cannot be § 102 anticipation references against this priority chain (they could only support § 103 showings, and several are EagleView's own later filings):

• US 8,401,222 B2 — "System and process for roof measurement using aerial imagery" (Pictometry; filed 2009-05-22; granted 2013-03-19) — despite being arguably the commercial closest art, it is not § 102 prior art (filed two years after the priority date). Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ab/81/c1/d42ce120270161/US8401222.pdf
• US 8,170,840 B2 (pitch determination; filed 2008-10-31), US 8,209,152 B2 (concurrent display; filed 2008-10-31), US 8,775,219 B2, US 9,501,700 B2 (Xactware, priority 2012-02-15), US 9,183,538 B2 (Pictometry quick-square roof reporting), US 2013/0311240 A1 (EagleView's own divisional) — all post-2007.

---

3. Bottom-line § 102 assessment

• No single cited reference, on the verified record, appears to disclose every limitation of claim 1 — in particular, the combination of (a) two aerial images from different viewpoints, (b) pixel-to-physical-length calibration, (c) line-projection triangulation of common reference points to locate 3D points, (d) pitch (rise/run) and area computation of roof sections, and (e) output of a roof report "useful as a guide to repair or replace the roof." The photogrammetric triangulation sub-element traces to US 2,791,151 A (Pennington); roof-specific 3D modeling traces to US 7,728,833 B2 (Sarnoff) and US 7,137,551 B2; oblique-image measurement traces to US 7,424,133 B2 (Pictometry); aerial roof surface measurement traces to WO 2000/029806 A2 and DE 198 57 667 A1; and roof/estimate reporting traces to US 7,373,303 B2, US 7,305,983 B1, and US 5,983,010 A.
• Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and additionally require specific annotated top-plan report graphics (numerical slope/area/length values, positional or arrow/annotation indicia). None of the pre-2007 cited references I verified discloses that annotation scheme, so none potentially anticipates claims 2–8 standing alone; each requires anticipation of claim 1 first.
• The strongest § 102 threat references for claim 1 are the pre-2007 roof-measurement photogrammetry publications (WO 2000/029806 A2, DE 198 57 667 A1, US 7,424,133 B2, US 7,728,833 B2). Whether any one of them fully anticipates would require a complete limitation-by-limitation review of its full text — several full texts (WO '806, DE '667) were not fully retrievable in this session, so I flag those as "content not fully verified" rather than asserting a definitive anticipation conclusion.
• Confidence statement: Verified with high confidence: the identity/priority/claim set of 10528960B2; the bibliographic data and disclosures of US 7,728,833 B2, US 7,424,133 B2, US 5,983,010 A, US 8,401,222 B2 (post-date), and US 7,373,303 B2. Lower confidence: the internal disclosure details of WO 2000/029806 A2, DE 198 57 667 A1, US 5,379,105 A, US 2,791,151 A, and US 7,305,983 B1, which I could not fully retrieve within the search limit; for those I gave the claim mapping only at the level supported by their titles/abstracts in the citation record.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,528,960 B2 ("Aerial Roof Estimation System and Method")

1. Scope and effective filing date

U.S. Patent 10,528,960 B2 (the "'960 patent") issued January 7, 2020, from continuation application 13/371,271 (filed Feb. 10, 2012), which claims priority to U.S. Application 12/148,439 (filed Apr. 17, 2008; issued as 8,145,578 B2) and Provisional Application 60/925,072 (filed Apr. 17, 2007). Because the chain was filed before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern, and the critical date for § 102(b)/103 analysis is April 17, 2007 (one year before the earliest non-provisional U.S. filing; § 102(e) prior art can also reach back to earlier U.S. filing dates of others).

Independent claim 1 requires, in substance:

1. Receiving a plurality of aerial image files of a building (first image from a first viewpoint; second from a different viewpoint), at least one having associated calibration information;
2. Determining pitch and area of roof section(s) by image analysis, including constructing a 3-D model by (a) calibrating an image to convert pixel distances to physical length, (b) identifying common reference points in the images, (c) locating each reference point in 3-D space by triangulation—projecting lines from each viewpoint through the common point and intersecting them, and (d) determining physical lengths between reference points in 3-D space;
3. Generating and outputting a roof report with pitch and area.

Dependent claims 2–8 add details about annotating top-plan views with numerical slope/area/length values, distinguishing value type by placement (lengths near edges; areas in the center) or by annotations such as arrows.

---

2. Closest prior-art references (all pre-date April 17, 2007, or qualify under § 102(e))

From the prior-art record on the face of the '960 patent, the most relevant references are:

Note: US 2008/0262789 A1 (Pershing/Carlson) is the parent application's own publication and shares the inventors and disclosure of the '960 patent; it is not § 102 prior art against this continuation and is therefore not relied on here (though its figures illustrate that the claimed report conventions were within the applicant's own earlier disclosure).

---

3. Proposed § 103 combinations rendering claim 1 obvious

Combination A — Gante (WO 00/29806 A2) + Ofek (WO 2006/040775 A2) + Pictometry (US 7,424,133 B2)

Element-by-element analysis of claim 1:

• Receiving multiple aerial image files from different viewpoints with calibration info: Ofek expressly stores and displays "digital images derived from respective photographs of a geographic region," taken "from a number of directions," with internal/external orientation and camera-calibration data per photograph. Pictometry stores "a plurality of image files corresponding to a plurality of captured oblique images, and positional data corresponding to the images" (GPS/INU per capture event), i.e., calibration information associated with each image.
• Calibrating to convert pixel distance to physical length: Pictometry measures real-world distance/area/elevation from user-selected pixels using geolocation/positional data; Ofek describes solving collinearity equations and camera orientation/calibration, the standard mechanism for converting image (pixel) coordinates into physical world coordinates.
• Identifying common reference points and triangulating by projecting lines from each viewpoint through the same point and intersecting them: This is the classical photogrammetric technique taught by Ofek (ray-from-camera-position/point correspondence among synchronized oblique views and world-coordinate computation) and independently by US 5,633,995 and US 6,333,749 (ray-intersection 3-D point recovery from multiple views) and US 2,791,151 (convergent-photography aerotriangulation).
• Determining physical lengths between points in 3-D and then roof-section area and pitch: Gante determines roof-surface dimensions from roof imagery (edge progression → surface dimensions); Pictometry computes area and height/elevation differences between selected points; computing area and pitch (rise/run) from 3-D roof-facet geometry was conventional photogrammetry/CAD.
• Generating/outputting a report of pitch and area: Roof-measurement for estimating repair/replacement is Gante's express purpose; report generation from measured roof quantities was routine (see also US 5,983,010, US 6,446,053).

Motivation to combine: A person of ordinary skill (a photogrammetrist or roof-estimation software engineer) seeking to measure roofs remotely and safely (Gante's objective) would consult the standard literature on multi-image photogrammetric 3-D reconstruction (Ofek; Martin Marietta; Adobe) and calibrated oblique-imagery measurement systems (Pictometry). The combination is the simple substitution of known 3-D triangulation and calibration modules into a known roof-measuring system, with each element performing its known function and a predictable result—exactly the KSR rationale ("combination of familiar elements according to known methods … likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)).

Combination B — Sarnoff (US 7,728,833 B2) + Ofek or Adobe (US 6,333,749 B1)

Sarnoff already teaches automatic generation of a 3-D roof model with roof-plane slopes and modeling of building/roof geometry from aerial data, including roof section areas implied by planar roof facets. Sarnoff's preferred input is LIDAR plus imagery; substituting image-only multi-view triangulation (Ofek or Adobe's ray-intersection from multiple aerial photographs; Martin Marietta) for the LIDAR point cloud was an obvious design choice, since both supply 3-D points on roof surfaces and Sarnoff itself describes registering electro-optical imagery to the model and deriving camera pose from images. A PHOSITA would combine them to obtain a roof report with pitch and area from aerial photographs alone, motivated by cost (avoiding LIDAR collection) and by the identical end use—roof modeling/measurement.

Combination C — "Roof geometry for estimating" references + multi-view 3-D references

Sharp (US 2006/0137736 A1), Univ. of Hawai'i (US 7,305,983 B1), and Pictometry each disclose deriving roof pitch (slope), area, and orientation from imagery for estimating purposes (solar/insurance/roofing). Adding the well-known multi-view triangulation algorithm of Ofek/Adobe/Martin Marietta to derive the 3-D geometry from two or more aerial photographs taken from different viewpoints (a step expressly described as needed in the '960 specification itself) would have been obvious: the '960 patent admits pitched roofs "typically require two or more photographs" and that triangulation is one of "a variety of photo-grammetric algorithms," described "in detail in textbooks, trade journals, and academic publications" (spec. at description of use). An applicant's own characterization of a technique as textbook-standard supports a finding that its use was within the ordinary skill.

---

4. Dependent claims 2–8 (report annotation limitations)

Claims 2–8 add only formatting/annotation details to the report:

• Claim 2: top-plan views annotated with numerical slope/area/edge-length values, using at least two different indicia for different property types;
• Claims 3–6: value type conveyed by placement (lengths adjacent to edges; area near center of the roof section);
• Claims 7–8: value type conveyed by annotations such as an arrow next to a slope value.

These limitations are conventional drafting/reporting choices. Annotating measured drawings with dimension callouts near edges, area labels in the interior of polygons, and slope arrows along roof planes was standard practice in architectural/roofing takeoff drawings and CAD output well before 2007 (see, e.g., the worksheet/report disclosures of US 5,983,010 (Murdock) and US 6,446,053 (Elliott); roof-measurement reports of Gante and Pictometry; and the general practice reflected in the solar-roof references above). Under the "printed matter" doctrine and KSR, adding commonplace annotation conventions to an otherwise obvious measurement-and-report process—with no new functionality or unexpected technical effect—cannot patentably distinguish the claim. The same obvious combination that reads on claim 1 therefore reads on claims 2–8, with the annotation rules supplied by ordinary drafting conventions or by any of the report-producing references.

---

5. Level of ordinary skill and Graham factors (summary)

• Level of skill: An individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science, photogrammetry, civil engineering, or a related field and 2–4 years' experience in aerial image processing, photogrammetric 3-D reconstruction, or construction estimating—capable of integrating image-calibration and multi-view triangulation modules into roof-estimating software.
• Differences between prior art and claims: The only meaningful differences are (i) applying standard multi-view ray-intersection triangulation to roof measurement, and (ii) formatting the resulting pitch/area measurements into annotated report views. Both are well within the grasp of the hypothetical skilled artisan.
• Motivation / reasonable expectation of success: Strong—every element existed in the same or analogous fields (aerial photogrammetry, roof estimating, construction takeoffs), the references identify the same problem (remote, accurate roof measurement), and combining them required only routine implementation.
• Secondary considerations: Not assessed here; no objective indicia (copying, long-felt need, commercial success, unexpected results) appear in the provided record, and the patent's family has been involved in litigation, where such evidence would need to be developed.

---

6. Caveats

• The analysis assumes claims are entitled to the April 17, 2007 priority date; if priority were lost (e.g., lack of written-description support in the provisional/parent), additional references dated between 2007 and 2012 (e.g., US 8,401,222 B2 to Pictometry, "System and process for roof measurement using aerial imagery") would become available and strengthen the case.
• I verified the content of Gante (WO 00/29806), Ofek (WO 2006/040775), Pictometry (US 7,424,133), Sarnoff (US 7,728,833), and Murdock (US 5,983,010) via web sources. For Sharp (US 2006/0137736), Univ. of Hawai'i (US 7,305,983), Adobe (US 6,333,749), and Martin Marietta (US 5,633,995), I rely on their titles/abstracts as listed on the face of the '960 patent; a formal § 103 case would require full-text verification of each mapping.

Bottom line: Under § 103 and KSR, claim 1 is vulnerable as an obvious combination of (1) known aerial-roof measurement/estimation systems (Gante; Sarnoff; Pictometry; Sharp) with (2) textbook multi-view photogrammetric triangulation and calibration (Ofek; Martin Marietta; Adobe; Pennington). Dependent claims 2–8 add only conventional report-annotation formatting and are unlikely to independently support patentability.