US 8670961

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and confirm the litigation status.

Let me retrieve the remaining independent claim language.

US Patent 8,670,961 — Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods

Scope note on sources: I searched public web indexes for this exact number (Google Patents, USPTO/report mirrors, PTAB documents, CAFC dockets). I did not have direct API access to the USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system in this session, so the litigation/PTAB details below rest on indexed copies of the actual PTAB Final Written Decision, the actual CAFC opinion (24-1488), and docket-reporting services. Where I could not verify text verbatim, I say so explicitly. I did not find any results for a different patent number; everything below is tied to 8,670,961.

---

1. Bibliographic data (verbatim from the patent record)

Priority chain (per the patent's own Cross Reference section): 13/287,954 is a continuation of 12/253,092 (filed Oct. 16, 2008), which is a continuation-in-part of 12/148,439 (filed April 17, 2008), which claims benefit of provisional 60/925,072 (filed April 17, 2007).

Classifications: primary G06T17/00 / G06T17/10 (3D modeling, constructive solid geometry); also G06F30/13 (architectural CAD), G06Q30/02 & G06Q10/0631 (price estimation; resource planning), and G06T7/30-series (image registration).

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"Methods and systems for roof estimation are described. Example embodiments include a roof estimation system, which generates and provides roof estimate reports annotated with indications of the size, geometry, pitch and/or orientation of the roof sections of a building. Generating a roof estimate report may be based on one or more aerial images of a building. The slope and orientation images are typically oblique perspective views and top plan views of the buildings in the area. In some embodiments, generating a roof estimate report of a specified building roof may include generating a three-dimensional model of the roof, and generating a report that includes one or more views of the three-dimensional model, the views annotated with indications of the dimensions, area, and/or slope of sections of the roof..."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the claims

Claim structure. The patent has 29 claims. Of the claims litigated at the PTAB, the independent claims are 1, 21, 22, 24, and 29 (claims 2, 7, 8, 25, 27 are dependent). Claims 1 and 7 are the ones the Board reproduced as illustrative.

Claim 1 — Independent (computing system)

A computing system for generating a roof report, comprising a memory and a roof estimation module that includes a calibration module. When executed, the module must:

1. Receive a plurality of aerial images of a building with a roof — the images must have been taken independent of each other, at different times and on different dates. (This "different times/dates" element became central in the IPR.)
2. The images must provide different views from each other of the roof, including at least (a) a first aerial image that is a top plan view and (b) a second aerial image that is an oblique perspective view.
3. At least one of the first/second images must be calibrated using calibration information received from the calibration module.
4. Perform image analysis on at least two of the images.
5. Calculate a pitch for each one of a plurality of roof sections based on that image analysis.
6. Generate and output a roof report that includes the pitch of each section, where the report includes one or more top plan views of a model of the roof annotated with numerical values indicating the corresponding pitch, area, and edge lengths of at least some roof sections, using at least two different indicia for different types of roof properties.

Claim 7 — Dependent on claim 1

Adds that the image analysis includes correlating the first aerial image with the second aerial image.

Claims 21 and 22 — Independent (computer-implemented method)

These are method counterparts, performed by a "roof estimation machine having a calibration module" with at least one processor and memory. Based on the record, they recite: receiving a plurality of aerial images of a roofed building taken independent of each other and at different times (including a top plan view and an oblique perspective view); receiving calibration information for at least one of the images; calibrating at least one image using that information and the calibration module; correlating the first image with the second image; and then performing image analysis on the plurality of aerial images based on the correlation. In the IPR, the patent owner heavily litigated the ordering requirement — that correlating precedes, and is the basis for, the image analysis.

Claims 24 and 29 — Independent

The PTAB identified claim 24 and claim 29 as independent. I could not obtain their verbatim text in this session, so I am not going to paraphrase them as though I had. You should pull the granted claims directly from the USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Claims" tab for exact wording. My confidence on the exact text of 24 and 29 is low; my confidence that they are independent is high (stated in the Board's written decision).

Dependent claims

Claims 2, 8, 25, 27 (and others) add narrower features not fully reproduced in the materials I retrieved — again, treat their exact scope as unverified here.

---

4. Litigation and validity status — including the 2026 CAFC activity you asked about

There is a CAFC 2026 docket for this patent, and it went against the patent owner.

• IPR2022-01009 — Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., challenging US 8,670,961. Filed 2022. Oral hearing held September 21, 2023 (combined with IPR2022-01090 on the sibling patent 8,078,436). Final Written Decision issued December 14, 2023: claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21–22, 24–25, 27, and 29 held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• Grounds: obviousness over Littleworth ("Three-Dimensional Mapping and As-Built Computer Modelling by Analytical Photogrammetry"), Linder (Digital Photogrammetry Theory and Applications), and Middlebrook (AutoCAD 2005 for Dummies).
• Key claim construction: the Board construed "calculate a pitch" / "determining a pitch" as not requiring any particular level of precision — i.e., encompassing estimates; and "aerial images" as broad enough to include images from certain ground-based platforms (a vehicle-mounted "street view" camera, a nearby building, a hilltop) because the specification expressly says so. The patent owner (Eagle View) had argued "aerial image" means "taken from the air, rather than from a ground-based platform."
• CAFC No. 24-1488 — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. Opinion issued February 3, 2026 (nonprecedential, Judge Chen). The court AFFIRMED the Board. It held the plain meaning of "calculate"/"determine" carries no accuracy requirement and encompasses estimations, and that substantial evidence (including expert testimony) supported the obviousness findings and the reason to combine Littleworth and Linder. A companion appeal, No. 2024-1549, covered the '436 patent and was reported as decided together (Bloomberg Law: Eagle View Technologies Inc. v. Nearmap US Inc., 2026 BL 33814, Fed. Cir., 2024-1488, 2024-1549, nonprecedential, 2/3/26).
• District court litigation associated with this family includes Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. GAF Materials LLC, D. Utah Nos. 2:22-cv-00215 and 2:21-cv-00283, and D.N.J. No. 1:21-cv-10669.

Practical implication: the "Active" legal status shown on Google Patents predates/fails to reflect the outcome. Because the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability holdings on February 3, 2026, the challenged claims (1, 2, 7, 8, 21–22, 24–25, 27, 29) are effectively cancelled. Any claims not challenged in IPR2022-01009 would be unaffected by that decision — I have not verified which claims, if any, survived untouched, so I flag that as an open item.

---

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim text of independent claims 24 and 29 — not retrieved. Do not rely on my description of scope for these.
2. Full dependent-claim set (claims 3–6, 9–20, 23, 26, 28, etc.) — not verified.
3. Which claims remain enforceable post-affirmance — the FWD/opinion covers the challenged claims listed above; the residual claim set was not confirmed in my sources.
4. Live USPTO PatentCenter transaction history and the CAFC docket entry itself — I relied on indexed reproductions (the CAFC's own posted nonprecedential opinion at cafc.uscourts.gov, the PTAB hearing transcript, and the Board's decision hosted on bannerwitcoff.com and ptacts.uspto.gov). For a filing that controls anything, pull the native documents.
5. The user-supplied prompt date (April 26, 2026) and my operating date (September 16, 2026) differ; both post-date the February 3, 2026 CAFC decision, so the affirmance stands regardless.

Primary URLs used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8670961/en · https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/02-03-2026-24-1488-eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc-opinion-24-1488-opinion-2-3-2026_2642158/ · https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/02/03/opinions-orders-february-3-2026/ · https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/03/federal-circuit-upholds-ptab-finding-aerial-imaging-patents-obvious/ · https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPR2022-01009.pdf · https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549767](/patent/1549767)/download-documents · https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-01009

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,670,961. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific district court cases and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961

Below is what I found for U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 specifically ("Aerial roof estimation systems and methods," EagleView Technologies, Inc. / Pictometry International Corp.). I have confined the results to this exact patent number and have flagged where sources are secondary or where I could not independently verify a detail.

---

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

Sources: the Google Patents family/litigation panel for US 8,670,961 (listing Utah District Court cases 2:21-cv-00283 and 2:22-cv-00215); Patsnap case summary (Case No. 2:21-cv-00283, filed May 4, 2021, stayed August 25, 2025). Note this case is still tracked as a co-pending proceeding in the Google Patents "Family has litigation" panel.

---

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

This case was transferred and re-docketed in Utah as 2:22-cv-00215 — see below. Sources: IPWatchdog PTAB filings roundup (May 12, 2021) listing 1:21-cv-10669 with patents including 8670961; CourtListener/Justia D.N.J. opinion, Document 65; Studicata case summary.

---

3. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. GAF Materials LLC (transferred case)

Source: Google Patents litigation panel for 8,670,961 (lists "US case filed in Utah District Court ... 2:22-cv-00215"); Ex Parte AI Lab case/complaint analysis for 2:22-cv-00215 (Eagle View Tech v. GAF Materials LLC).

---

4. PTAB Post-Grant Proceeding (not a district court case, but the crux of the challenge to the '961 patent)

Sources: GreyB IPVerse PTAB case page for IPR2022-01009; USPTO PTAB hearing transcript (IPR2022-01009 / IPR2022-01090); IPWatchdog, "Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Finding that Aerial Imaging Patents are Obvious," Feb. 3, 2026; Federal Circuit opinion via CourtListener/VitalLaw.

---

Important notes and caveats

• The '961 patent was not. To my knowledge, the '961 patent was not among the patents tried to verdict in the earlier Eagle View Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc., Civ. No. 15-7025 (RMB/SAK) (D.N.J.) action cited in the transfer opinion. The Xactware verdict covered claims of the '436, '840 and '376 patents (and the '152 patent was resolved separately). I flag this as a limitation rather than a certainty, since it is based on secondary court documents.
• Case number format: The New Jersey case is cited both as 1:21-cv-10669 and as Civ. No. 21-10669; the Utah Nearmap case as 2:21-cv-00283; the transferred GAF case as 2:22-cv-00215. I have not auto-corrected any of these.
• Current status of the District of Utah cases: The Utah Nearmap action was stayed/administratively closed (Aug. 25, 2025). Given that the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's invalidation of the '961 claims in February 2026, the practical significance of the '961 patent in any still-open district court case is greatly diminished — but I have not found a source confirming a post-appeal disposition (dismissal, judgment, settlement) for cases 2:21-cv-00283 or 2:22-cv-00215. Treat that as unverified.
• Sources are secondary. My searches returned Unified Patents' Portal, IPVerse/GreyB, Patsnap, IPWatchdog, CourtListener, Justia and studicata. I was not able to directly open the authoritative docket (PACER) pages in this session. Case numbers, dates and outcomes should be confirmed against PACER and the Federal Circuit docket before being relied upon.

---

Summary

The '961 patent is known to have been litigated in:

1. Eagle View/Pictometry v. Nearmap US — D. Utah, 2:21-cv-00283 (filed May 4, 2021; stayed/administratively closed Aug. 25, 2025).
2. Eagle View/Pictometry v. GAF Materials — D.N.J., 1:21-cv-10669 (filed May 4, 2021; transferred to D. Utah as 2:22-cv-00215).
3. Nearmap v. Eagle View — PTAB IPR2022-01009 (filed May 10, 2022; instituted Dec. 14, 2022; FWD Dec. 14, 2023 holding the challenged claims obvious; affirmed by the Federal Circuit, No. 24-1488, on Feb. 3, 2026).

If you need, I can attempt to open PACER/CourtListener docket sheets for 2:21-cv-00283 and 2:22-cv-00215 to pin down their current, post-February-2026 statuses.

I'll start by verifying what PTAB proceedings exist for this patent — the structured block says ODP returns none, but the patent family data mentions IPR2022-01009, so I need to reconcile that.

Strong signal: IPR2022-01009 exists and went to an FWD, with a Federal Circuit appeal. Let me pin down the claim-level outcomes, the panel, and whether any other petitions were filed against this patent.

Let me check for any other petitions against this patent (e.g., from GAF) and confirm the full claim set of the '961 patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 ("Aerial roof estimation systems and methods")

Data-source reconciliation (read first). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is incomplete. Web research confirms one real, fully-litigated IPR: IPR2022-01009, which reached a Final Written Decision and a Federal Circuit affirmance. The ODP ingest evidently predates or missed this record. Per my operating rules, I am reporting the proceeding that actually exists rather than treating the ODP null as dispositive.

---

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding on file: IPR2022-01009 (Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.), status Final Written Decision — claims invalidated, affirmed on appeal. Breakdown: 0 active / 1 claims-invalidated / 0 claims-sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. Bottom line for a defense team: this patent's core claim set is dead — claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 were held unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-02-03. If a demand letter against you relies on any of those claims, the patent owner is asserting claims that a final, affirmed judgment holds invalid.

---

IPR2022-01009 — Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2022-05-10
• Status: Final Written Decision (PTAB docket status: "Final Written Decision"; termination date 2023-12-14). Plain English: trial instituted on all grounds, all challenged claims held unpatentable, decision affirmed on appeal.
• Judge panel: Thomas L. Giannetti, Garth D. Baer, and Russell E. Cass, Administrative Patent Judges — Judge Cass authored the Final Written Decision. (Source: FWD, Paper 28; Banner Witcoff PTAB Highlights: "IPR 2022-01009, Paper 28 (December 14, 2023) (Cass, joined by Giannetti and Baer)")
• Real parties in interest: Petitioner — Nearmap US, Inc. Patent Owner — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. (both subsidiaries of Eagle View Technology Corporation).
• Petition grounds: A single ground under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29. References combined: Littleworth ("Three-Dimensional Mapping and As-Built Computer Modelling by Analytical Photogrammetry," Proceedings of the ISPRS Congress 1992), Linder (Digital Photogrammetry: Theory and Applications), and Middlebrook (AutoCAD 2005 for Dummies). No § 112 or § 102 ground was presented. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 21, 22, 24, and 29 are independent; the remainder are dependent.
• Institution decision: Instituted on all grounds on 2022-12-14 (Paper 7). The panel found the petition met the § 314(a) threshold; the decision also resolved the parties' public-accessibility dispute over Littleworth in Petitioner's favor at the institution stage.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2023-12-14 (Paper 28; reported at Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., No. IPR2022-01009, 2023 WL 8651434 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2023)). Verdict: every challenged claim — claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 — was held unpatentable as obvious. No challenged claim was sustained. Per the Federal Circuit's opinion, "the Board found the challenged claims … unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103." Key sub-holdings:
  • Public accessibility of Littleworth: The Board found Littleworth qualified as prior art, crediting MARC library records (Munford and Silverstein declarations) and applying Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) to permit new public-accessibility evidence in reply. Banner Witcoff summarized it as "finding claims unpatentable in view of prior art that was published by an established publisher and therefore created a presumption of public accessibility."
  • "calculate a pitch" / "determining a pitch": The Board read these terms as not requiring any particular level of accuracy, i.e., encompassing estimation/approximation. The Federal Circuit affirmed this "implicit construction," quoting the specification: "the slope can be easily calculated from such a representation using basic trigonometry."
  • Pitch limitation met: The Board credited Petitioner's expert that "the inclusion of a pitched roof in Littleworth's three-dimensional model of the roof indicates that Littleworth's system made a determination of the pitch," and additionally relied on the Littleworth + Middlebrook combination — rejecting Eagle View's inherent-disclosure attack.
• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding ran to an FWD; no settlement or adverse-judgment termination appears on the record.
• Appeal: Yes — appealed to the Federal Circuit. Docket No. 24-1488, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. The appeal addressed both the '961 FWD (IPR2022-01009) and the parallel FWD on U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 (IPR2022-01090); the panel opinion covers both. Panel: Judge Chen (per VitalLaw); disposition AFFIRMED on 2026-02-03 (nonprecedential). Issues on appeal: (1) claim construction of "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch"; (2) whether the Board erred in finding Littleworth disclosed the pitch-calculating limitation; and (3) whether the Board properly rejected Eagle View's argument on the motivation to combine. The court found "the specification does not support Eagle View's position that 'determining' and 'calculat[ing]' do not encompass estimations or approximations" and affirmed on substantial-evidence grounds. See CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10783305](/patent/10783305)/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/ ; opinion PDF: https://business.cch.com/ipld/EagleViewTechnologiesNearmapFedCir20260203.pdf ; Fed. Cir. blog docket summary: https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/02/03/opinions-orders-february-3-2026/
  • Caveat: A separate CAFC appeal number, 2024-1549, is reported by third-party trackers for the '436 FWD. I could not confirm from primary sources whether the two appeals were formally consolidated under 24-1488 or merely argued/decided together; treat the appeal-number linkage to the '961 patent as 24-1488 (confirmed) and the '436 appeal number as unverified.
• Defensive value: Extremely high. The asserted independent claims (1, 21, 22, 24, 29) and their litigated dependents are invalidated by a final judgment that has now survived Federal Circuit review. Any infringement theory built on claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, or 29 is built on canceled claims. Expect the patent owner to pivot to the unchallenged claims, not these.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. The IPR did not reach the entire patent. It reached claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29, and all ten were held unpatentable. The independent claims 1, 21, 22, 24, and 29 are CANCELED (subject to issuance of the cancellation certificate following the appeal mandate). The '961 claim set runs at least to claim 29 (claim 29 was challenged), so the untested claims are by elimination claims 3–6, 9–20, 23, 26, and 28 — I could not confirm from primary sources whether the patent contains claims beyond 29, so treat that enumeration as an inference, not a verified claim listing. Practically, the untested dependent claims (3–6, 9–20, 23, 26, 28) hang off independent claims that are now invalid, so they inherit the invalidated limitations; they would have to add separate patentable weight over Littleworth/Linder/Middlebrook to be assertable. Any defendant should demand that Eagle View identify, with claim charts, exactly which surviving claim it is asserting — and should not concede that a dependent claim escapes the FWD's reasoning without proof.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estops Nearmap and its privies from raising in litigation any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01009 — but that is academic, because the claims Nearmap attacked are invalid. For a different defendant, the more powerful tools are issue preclusion / Blonder-Tongue (a final judgment of invalidity of a patent claim generally estops the patentee from re-asserting that same claim against others) and stare-decisis pressure in any new IPR (a second petitioner attacking claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, or 29 will face § 325(d) and General Plastic discretion). Available grounds for a new defendant: the Littleworth+Linder+Middlebrook § 103 combination is fully spent and public; if you need a validity theory, focus on (a) the untested dependent claims, and (b) different art (e.g., Pictometry/Pictometry.com prior art already of record, or ground-based imagery systems) that a new petition could pair against the surviving claims.

Pattern signals. (1) The petitioner is Nearmap US, Inc. — a direct competitor, not a defensive aggregator; Unified Patents does not appear as a petitioner (its name appears only as the source of the litigation-data feed on the Google Patents page). (2) Nearmap filed a companion IPR on the sibling patent — IPR2022-01090 against U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 (filed 2022-06-01; instituted 2023-01-12; FWD 2024-01-09; panel Baer, Giannetti, Cass — Judge Baer writing). That FWD held claims 1–42 and 46–66 of the '436 patent unpatentable, per the same CAFC opinion. The same panel heard both cases together (combined oral hearing 2023-09-21). (3) Eagle View does litigate aggressively and appeal: it took both FWDs up. (4) Separately, in a different Eagle View patent (a roof-model user-interface patent, not the '961 patent), the Director vacated and remanded an FWD that had found claims not unpatentable on objective-indicia grounds — showing Eagle View has had success running secondary-considerations defenses elsewhere. That defense did not save the '961 patent. (5) The '961 patent was asserted in Eagle View v. Nearmap, No. 2:21-cv-00283 (D. Utah), Eagle View v. GAF Materials, No. 2:22-cv-00215 (D. Utah) and No. 1:21-cv-10669 (D.N.J.); the Utah case was stayed and administratively closed on 2025-08-25 pending the PTO/CAFC proceedings.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and the demand cites claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, or 29: the patent owner has no case on those claims. The FWD disposition is: "we have found Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 of the '961 patent are unpatentable" — reported as 2023 WL 8651434, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-02-03. Cite: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026) (nonprecedential), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783305/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/ . The FWD PDF copy is at https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPR2022-01009.pdf ; the official record is on PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/ (search IPR2022-01009). Move for judgment on the pleadings / summary judgment on those claims under Blonder-Tongue once the cancellation certificate issues.

If active proceedings remain: there are no pending PTAB trial milestones on the '961 patent — the FWD issued 2023-12-14 and the statutory 1-year trial clock has long expired. The only open item is the administrative issuance of the claim-cancellation certificate following the Federal Circuit's 2026-02-03 mandate; monitor the patent's USPTO PTAB trial certificate tab before finalizing any settlement or consent judgment.

No PTAB activity scenario: on the FWD the absence-of-activity signal is reversed — this patent did not escape unscathed. It was attacked and lost.

Bottom line: Treat U.S. 8,670,961 as a hollowed-out patent. Its five independent claims are invalidated and affirmed. Any assertion against you should be met with an immediate demand for the specific surviving claim and its claim chart — and with an estoppel/invalidity motion on the canceled claims.

---

Accuracy notes (per my operating rules): (1) I did not independently confirm a formal certificate of cancellation has issued — it may still be pending as of 2026-09-16. (2) I did not confirm the '961 patent's total claim count or which claims beyond 29 exist; the "untested claims" list is derived by eliminating challenged claims and should be verified against the patent's printed claims. (3) The '436 and '961 appeals may have been consolidated; I confirmed 24-1488 for the '961 disposition but not the 2024-1549 linkage. (4) The Director-review remand discussed in the strategic section concerns a different Eagle View patent and should not be attributed to the '961 patent.

I'll research the ownership chain and litigation history for US 8670961 before building the report.

Key finding already: the IPR petitioner was Nearmap (a competitor), not Unified Patents. Let me verify the assignment record details and the corporate history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8670961 B2

Patent: US 8,670,961 B2 — "Aerial roof estimation systems and methods"
App. No.: 13/287,954 · Filed: 2011-11-02 · Issued: 2014-03-11 · Priority: 2007-04-17
Source of record for this report: Google Patents legal-events feed (the authoritative text supplied for this patent), cross-checked against Federal Circuit, PTAB, and district-court records.

Data-availability caveat (read first): The USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Assignment Center entries for this patent include reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondent (attorney or firm of record). I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame numbers or correspondent fields for these records in this session. Rather than fabricate them, I have reconstructed the chain from the Google Patents legal-events entries, which mirror the underlying USPTO assignment records, and I mark each entry's reel/frame as [not retrieved — verify at Assignment Center]. Correspondent analysis (NPE-signal #3) is therefore unclear, not negative.

---

Inventors

Both inventors are the named assignors on the 2012-03-05 recordation ("Assignors: PERSHING, CHRIS, CARLSON, DAVE"). They are the founders of the original assignee, so the assignment is the ordinary employee/founder-to-company transfer that accompanies any venture-backed filing, executed only after the 2011-11-02 continuation filing.

Unusual-pattern check: No anomalous pattern. There is no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing, no serial-inventor-for-hire pattern, and no mismatch between inventor residence and assignee location (both Washington State, as is Bothell-based EagleView). This is a founder-inventor, operating-company filing — the opposite of a portfolio-fire-sale setup.

---

Original assignee

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (Bothell, WA, US) — named on the face of the patent and confirmed as both Original and Current Assignee in the Google Patents record.

• Business: Aerial imagery capture, photogrammetric 3-D roof modeling, and roof-measurement reporting. The patent's own specification describes commercial delivery of roof estimate reports (FIGS. 5A–5F) to roofers, insurers, solar installers, and contractors — i.e., the assignee's core shipped product.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. EagleView's aerial roof-measurement reports are the commercial embodiment; the company's own litigation filings describe it as the pioneer of remote aerial roof measurement, and third parties (FTC, courts) treat it as the dominant US provider of rooftop aerial measurement products for insurance claims.
• Current status: Operating (privately held). Corporate history: merged with Pictometry International in 2013 to form EagleView Technology Corporation; a $650M Verisk Analytics acquisition collapsed in Dec. 2014 after the FTC moved to block it as creating "a virtual monopoly in the U.S. market for rooftop aerial measurement products"; acquired by Vista Equity Partners in 2015; financing security interests filed 2015, 2018, and 2025. The patent's Google Patents family shows continuing prosecution of the same family by EagleView as recently as 2018 (US 10,930,063 B2).
• Bankruptcy: Not confirmed. I could not complete verification of any Chapter 7/11 proceeding. The 2025-03/2025-04 refinancing sequence (grant, then release, then release of the HPS second lien) is consistent with a refinancing or recapitalization, not a demonstrated bankruptcy fire-sale. See Signal 6.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological; all post-2012 records are security interests and their releases, not transfers of title. Reel/frame not retrieved (see caveat).

• 2012-03-05 (recorded) / execution date not displayed — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (title transfer)
  • Assignor: Chris Pershing; Dave Carlson (individually)
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Original founder/inventor-to-company title assignment — the only true title transfer in the entire chain.

• 2015-07-20 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement (lién, not title)
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Securitization — acquisition financing for Vista Equity Partners' 2015 take-private of EagleView.

• 2015-07-20 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement (lien, not title)
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Securitization — companion second-lien tranche to the same 2015 LBO financing.

• 2017-09-22 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release of Second Lien Security Interest
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: Pictometry International Corp.; Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal collateral release — second-lien debt repaid/refinanced; no change in ownership.

• 2018-08-14 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement (lien, not title)
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Securitization — 2018 refinancing; HPS takes the second lien.

• 2018-08-23 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement (lien, not title)
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Securitization — 2018 refinancing; Morgan Stanley re-papered as first-lien collateral agent.

• 2018-08-29 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal collateral release — superseded by the 2018-08-23 first-lien grant.

• 2025-03-28 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement (lien, not title)
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Securitization — 2025 refinancing / recapitalization.

• 2025-04-09 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal collateral release paired with the 2025-03-28 grant.

• 2025-04-14 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal collateral release — HPS second lien discharged, clearing the 2018 lien stack.

Bottom line of the chain: There are ten recorded events since issuance and not one of them conveys title away from EagleView. Every post-2012 record is either a lien grant to a secured lender or a release of one. The patent has been used repeatedly as loan collateral (2015, 2018, 2025), which is a hallmark of an operating company, not an NPE.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8670961
    2007 : Provisional filed
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2011 : Continuation application filed
    2012 : Inventors assign title to Eagle View Technologies
    2013 : EagleView merges with Pictometry
    2014 : Patent issued
    2015 : Vista Equity acquires EagleView
         : Morgan Stanley first and second liens recorded
    2017 : Second lien security interest released
    2018 : Morgan Stanley first lien recorded
         : HPS second lien recorded
         : Prior first lien released
    2019 : 125M jury verdict vs Verisk and Xactware
    2021 : Suit filed against Nearmap in Utah
    2022 : Nearmap files IPR against this patent
         : Suit filed against GAF Materials
    2023 : PTAB invalidates asserted claims
    2025 : Morgan Stanley first lien recorded
         : First lien and HPS liens released
         : Utah action stayed
    2026 : Federal Circuit affirms invalidity

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No assignment of title to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity exists in the chain. The only title transfer on record is the 2012-03-05 inventor-to-Eagle View Technologies assignment; everything after it is a lien or a release (2015-07-20; 2018-08-14; 2018-08-23; 2025-03-28). The current owner per the record is the same operating company that received title in 2012.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, or Spangenberg entity appears at any point. The only non-practicing names in the chain are secured lenders — Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. and HPS Investment Partners, LLC — whose recorded role is expressly collateral agent/lienholder, not owner or exclusive licensee. Lenders taking security interests is not assertion activity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not assessable).
The recording correspondent field was not retrievable in this session. I therefore make no finding. This is a genuine gap: two lenders × ten recordings over a decade normally produce a small, recurring set of IP-recording firms, and that pattern should be checked directly at the Assignment Center. Absent that data, this signal cannot be scored.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There are no consecutive title transfers through chained LLCs at any interval, let alone <24 months. The 2015 → 2017 → 2018 lien sequence is a normal financing lifecycle (grant, release, refinance), and each release runs collateral back to EagleView, not onward to a new owner.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The only title assignment (2012-03-05) precedes the first suit asserting EagleView's roof patents by more than three years (D.N.J. suit filed Sept. 2015). No assignment of this patent sits within 6 months of any infringement filing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT on available records.
I found no Chapter 7/11 proceeding for EagleView and no sale of this patent in any estate. The 2025-03-28 / 2025-04-09 / 2025-04-14 grant-and-release cluster looks like a refinancing, not a liquidation. Flagged as a watch item only because the 2025 events are recent and the 2025-04 refinancing is not fully explained by the public record I retrieved.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer of this patent to a third-party assertion vehicle. The inverse pattern actually appears: EagleView asserts its own patents itself, against direct commercial competitors, while retaining title throughout.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Note: the Google Patents page tags the PTAB proceeding with the string "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'" — that is the name of the data source powering the link, not the petitioner. The actual petitioner in IPR2022-01009 is Nearmap US, Inc., a commercial competitor. Correcting this matters, because otherwise it reads as a defensive-aggregation signal when it is the opposite: a competitor invalidity challenge.)

Litigation posture (context for the verdict): EagleView Technologies, Inc. / Pictometry International Corp. have enforced this portfolio against direct competitors —

• D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025 — EagleView & Pictometry v. Xactware Solutions & Verisk Analytics; Sept. 2019 jury found willful infringement of five EagleView patents and awarded $125M in lost profits, followed by a permanent injunction (EagleView's own press materials and Quinn Emanuel's AI Bulletin confirm this).
• D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283 — EagleView v. Nearmap US, Inc.; eight patents asserted, including US 8,670,961; §101 motion to dismiss denied Nov. 15, 2021; all proceedings stayed Aug. 25, 2025 pending PTO and Federal Circuit outcomes; subsequently settled between the parties.
• D. Utah 2:22-cv-00215 — Eagle View Technologies et al. v. GAF Materials LLC (nine patents; §101 motion denied).
• D. Del. 22-1852 — EagleView & Pictometry v. Roofr, Inc.
• IPR2022-01009 (Nearmap, filed 2022-05-10, instituted 2022-12-14, Final Written Decision 2023-12-14) — claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 of the '961 patent held unpatentable under §103. Fed. Cir. 24-1488 affirmed on Feb. 3, 2026. EagleView also lost IPR2022-01090 on US 8,078,436.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The only title transfer on record is the 2012-03-05 assignment from founders Pershing and Carlson to Eagle View Technologies, Inc., and every subsequent recorded event (2015-07-20, 2018-08-14, 2018-08-23, 2025-03-28) is a security interest to a lender — Morgan Stanley Senior Funding or HPS Investment Partners — with matching releases (2017-09-22, 2018-08-29, 2025-04-09, 2025-04-14) returning collateral to EagleView. The current owner still ships the patented product (aerial roof measurement reports) and has asserted this exact patent against genuine competitors (Nearmap in D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283; GAF in 2:22-cv-00215; the $125M Verisk/Xactware verdict on the sibling patents), which is the textbook operating-company enforcement posture, not NPE conduct. The commercially important caveat is that this patent is now effectively neutralized by invalidation rather than by a defensive aggregator: the asserted claims fell in IPR2022-01009 (PTAB 2023-12-14) and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-02-03.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 8670961) — retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent fields for each of the ten records above, which I could not obtain here; that is the one open item in this analysis.

I'll research US patent 8670961 and its prior art citations.

Let me get more detail on the cited references.

This is highly relevant — there's a recent PTAB/Federal Circuit decision on this exact patent. Let me dig into the IPR prior art and get the full citation list.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961

Note on identifiers: I have interpreted every number literally (e.g., US 8,670,961, application 13/287,954, IPR2022-01009, Fed. Cir. No. 24-1488) and have not normalized or auto-corrected any of them.

---

1. The Patent Being Analyzed (bibliographic verification)

Sources: Google Patents (~/patent/US8670961/en), Sumobrain, uspto.report, Federal Circuit disposition (see §4).

Important caveat up front: the "References Cited" listing I retrieved was truncated mid-list (the domestic-patent list was cut off after US 7,324,666 B2), so the list below is complete only as far as I could retrieve. Also, the full text of the claims was not included in the retrieved material (only the specification/abstract were). I therefore map references to claim subject matter where I cannot responsibly cite specific claim numbers, and I flag all such mappings as my assessment rather than a record of an examiner's actual rejection.

---

2. ⚠️ The single most probative prior-art finding for this patent

This should frame everything else, because it is a judicially confirmed invalidation of the exact patent:

• Proceeding: Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-01009 (PTAB), instituted 2022-12-14, Final Written Decision 2023-12-14 (Cass, Giannetti, Baer).
• Claims held unpatentable: 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29.
• Ground: §103(a) over the combination of Littleworth, Linden/Linder, and Middlebrook — described in reporting as "an academic article and two textbooks." (Spelling varies across the record: the IPR petition lists "Linden"; the Federal Circuit opinion text speaks of "Linder's stereoscopic imaging techniques." I am reporting both rather than silently correcting one.)
• Appeal: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026) — PTAB affirmed. The court held the plain meaning of "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" requires no particular precision and encompasses an estimate, and that substantial evidence (including expert testimony) supported the Board's finding that Littleworth discloses a pitch determination and that a skilled artisan would combine Linder's stereoscopic techniques.
• Related companion proceeding: IPR2022-01090 (on US 8,078,436, same specification).

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-01009 ; https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPR2022-01009.pdf ; https://business.cch.com/ipld/EagleViewTechnologiesNearmapFedCir20260203.pdf ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10783305](/patent/10783305)/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/

Key analytic point: the '961 patent was not killed by a §102 anticipation; it fell to a §103 obviousness combination. That matters for your question — see §5.

---

3. Patent citations retrieved from the face of US 8,670,961

Listed as "Domestic Patent References" (U.S. patents/patent documents cited). Format: number — publication date — inventor — title.

Foreign patent documents and non-patent literature were also cited (the full "References Cited" includes "Other References"), e.g.: Faugeras et al., "3-D Reconstruction of Urban Scenes from Sequences of Images" (INRIA No. 2572, Jun. 1995); Gulch et al., "On the Performance of Semi-Automatic Building Extraction" (IAPRS, 1998); Henricsson et al., "3-D Building Reconstruction with ARUBA" (2001); Noronha et al., "Detection and Modeling of Buildings from Multiple Aerial Images," IEEE TPAMI 23(5):501–518 (2001); Mann, "Roof with a view," Contract Journal 431(6552):29 (2005); Miller et al., Miller's Guide to Framing and Roofing (McGraw Hill, 2005); PhotoModeler materials; and Pictometry product materials/"Electronic Field Study" documentation. I did not retrieve the complete closing portion of the list, so I cannot certify completeness.

Sources: https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Aerial-roof-estimation-systems-methods/8670961.html ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/8670961

---

4. Why none of the face-of-patent citations is a clean §102 anticipation

35 U.S.C. §102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged in the claim. The '961 independent claims (per the Federal Circuit's quotation of claim 1) require, in combination:

1. obtaining aerial images of a building,
2. performing image analysis and correlating the images,
3. generating a three-dimensional model of the roof, and
4. "calculat[ing] a pitch for each one of a plurality of roof sections … based on the image analysis," then
5. generating an annotated output/estimate.

The cited references each touch one or two of these elements:

• 3D-from-images → US 5,633,995 (McClain), US 6,333,749 (Reinhardt), US 7,133,551 (Chen), US 6,396,491 (Watanabe), US 6,496,184 (Freeman), US 2,791,151 (Pennington).
• Construction estimate/proposal → US 6,446,053 (Elliott), US 7,006,977 (Attra).
• Roof/building measurement & orientation → US 5,379,105 (Iki), US 5,983,010 (Murdock), US 7,305,983 (Meder).
• Address/geo lookup + mapping imagery → US 5,247,356 (Ciampa), US 5,596,494 (Kuo), US 5,633,946 (Lachinski), US 6,323,885 (Wiese), US 6,385,541 (Blumberg), US 6,636,803 (Hartz), US 6,836,270 (Du).

No single one of these appears to disclose the pitch-calculation-from-aerial-image-analysis element together with a 3D roof model and an annotated estimate report — which is precisely why the patent issued, and why the actual invalidation (IPR2022-01009) was run as a §103 combination rather than a §102 anticipation. Treat the "potential §102" column above as reference-to-limitation mapping, not as confirmed anticipation.

---

5. The most relevant prior art, ranked

1. Littleworth + Linden/Linder + Middlebrook (the IPR2022-01009 combination) — the most relevant art. Non-precedential Fed. Cir. No. 24-1488 (Feb. 3, 2026) affirmed that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 are unpatentable. Legally this is an obviousness holding under §103(a), grounded in (a) Littleworth's 3D roof model built from aerial imagery whose "roof detail was digitized 'indicating their pitch,'" (b) Linder's stereoscopic imaging, and (c) Middlebrook's teaching of automatically calculating distances/dimensions (including angular dimensions, i.e., pitch) from a 3D model. Note the technical distinction the court accepted: the pitch calculation need not be performed directly from the image analysis; it may be performed as part of 3D-model generation that is itself based on image analysis.
2. US 7,133,551 (Chen) and US 5,633,995 (McClain) — closest patent art on 3D building/object reconstruction from images.
3. US 5,379,105 (Iki) — roof-specific measurement art.
4. US 6,446,053 (Elliott) — construction-proposal generation.
5. US 7,305,983 (Meder) — roof orientation / solar-potential assessment.
6. Noronha et al. (2001) and Faugeras et al. (1995) — the strongest NPL on multi-image building detection/modeling.

---

6. Confidence and limitations — read this before relying on the list

• High confidence: bibliographic data of US 8,670,961; the IPR2022-01009 claim numbers/ground/Dates; the Fed. Cir. affirmance (No. 24-1488, Feb. 3, 2026).
• Medium confidence: the content/dates of the individual U.S. patent citations in §3 — these come from a third-party mirror of the "References Cited" section, not from a live USPTO PatentCenter/Public-PAIR pull. The list was truncated after US 7,324,666 B2, so it is incomplete.
• Explicitly not established: (a) the exact text of the full claim set of the '961 patent (the provided full text ends at the specification; the claims were not included); (b) any examiner-issued §102 rejection — I could not verify which of these references were actually applied as anticipation rejections during prosecution. Any "potential §102" mapping above is my analytical judgment and should be independently verified against the file wrapper.
• Do not treat the §102 column as legal advice or as a statement of record.

If you need certainty on which cited references were actually applied under §102 vs. §103 during prosecution, the authoritative next step is the USPTO file wrapper for application 13/287,954 (PatentCenter), plus the IPR2022-01009 record for the Littleworth/Linden/Middlebrook exhibit numbering and publication dates.

I'll verify the prior-art reference identities and the IPR grounds before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me pull the granted claim text and the FWD's claim-by-claim table.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This section builds on the patent summary and litigation summary already produced. I do not repeat the bibliographic, abstract, or claim-overview content. Where I depart from or refine those sections, I flag it in § VIII. All reference identifications below were re-verified against the PTAB Final Written Decision (FWD) in IPR2022-01009 (hosted at bannerwitcoff.com) and the PTAB oral hearing transcript (ptacts.uspto.gov), plus independent bibliographic records for the three references.

---

I. Legal framework applied

Governing statute. The '961 patent's earliest claimed priority is April 17, 2007 (provisional 60/925,072), and no claim was ever prosecuted under the AIA first-inventor-to-file regime. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) therefore governs — which is consistent with the FWD, which cited § 103(a). This matters for the analysis in one respect: pre-AIA § 103(a) is the vehicle for the "analogous art" and "ordinary creativity" lines of authority relied on below, and it is the standard under which the Board and the Federal Circuit resolved the case.

Graham/KSR framework. Obviousness turns on (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Critically, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the two propositions that carry this case: (a) a claimed combination of known elements is obvious where the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and (b) a POSITA's "ordinary creativity" — not merely the explicit teaching of the references — may supply the motivation to combine.

Level of ordinary skill in the art (proposed). A person with a bachelor's degree in photogrammetry, geomatics, computer science, or an equivalent engineering field, and approximately two years of experience in photogrammetry, image processing, or 3D CAD modeling; or, alternatively, substantial practical experience in the roofing-estimation industry combined with familiarity with CAD measurement tools. This definition is important because it validates two uses of Middlebrook and Linder that the patent owner attacked: a POSITA in this field is precisely the audience Linder addresses (see § IV.B), and is precisely the person who uses AutoCAD dimensions in ordinary practice.

Claim construction that shaped the obviousness outcome. As detailed in the prior sections, the Board and the Federal Circuit construed "calculate a pitch" / "determining a pitch" as imposing no accuracy requirement. The Federal Circuit's reasoning is quotable and I'll ground the whole analysis on it: the specification uses "closely estimat[ing]" dimensions and slopes, and the specification's separate reference to "accurately determin[ing] the pitch" in certain embodiments shows that "accuracy is not an inherent part of the word 'determining' itself." Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026) (nonprecedential). The same construction was applied to "aerial images," which the Board read to encompass ground-based platforms (including a camera on a nearby building — which is the very vantage of the Littleworth reference) because the '961 specification expressly says so.

Consequence for this analysis: I do not need to argue that any single reference numerically computed a pitch to roofing-industry precision. It is sufficient that the combination rendered the claimed pitch-determination step obvious. The Federal Circuit expressly rejected the contrary framing, noting the Board "did not in fact rely solely upon that reference for the pitch calculation element."

---

II. The prior art — verified identities

Refinement to the prior summary. The summary's parenthetical for Littleworth is correct as to title, and my search confirms it corresponds to the ISPRS Congress paper, not the similarly-named Littleworth & Chandler article in The Photogrammetric Record 15(85):65–76 (1995) ("Three Dimensional Computer Graphic Models by Analytical Photogrammetry"). Anyone pulling the references for verification should be careful not to grab the wrong Littleworth paper — the FWD's page cites (754/755) pinpoint the ISPRS proceedings version.

Analogous art. All three are from the same field of endeavor (analytical/digital photogrammetry, 3D CAD modeling) or are reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced (producing an annotated measured drawing of a 3D model). Littleworth and Linder are core photogrammetry references; Middlebrook is a CAD-annotation reference describing the known tool for the final reporting step.

---

III. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping to the combination

Claim 1 is the lead independent claim, and the FWD reproduced it as illustrative. The bracketed numbering is the Board's own limitation scheme where recoverable from the FWD.

[1.1] Computing system comprising a memory and a roof estimation module including a calibration module

Littleworth itself opens on the hardware/software architecture: the paper "indicates the advantages afforded when an analytical plotter is interfaced with a three dimensional CAD system," and describes creation of "3-dimensional CAD models ... suitable for further manipulation and interrogation by the clients CAD system." An analytical plotter interfaced to a CAD workstation is a computing system with memory executing a modeling module; the photogrammetric orientation steps inherent in analytical plotting are the "calibration module" functionality (see [1.4]).

Linder reinforces this: its included LISA/BLUH software ships with a chapter on "Hardware requirements, operating system" and a "Programme description" covering "Basic functions ... Buttons in the graphics windows; File handling." Middlebrook describes AutoCAD as an application program executing on a general-purpose computer.

No meaningful gap. This is a "generic computer plus programmed module" element, and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly declined to find nonobviousness where the hardware is conventional and the dispute is over functionality. The Board treated this as satisfied without significant dispute.

[1.2] Receiving a plurality of aerial images taken independent of each other, at different times and on different dates

This is, in my assessment, the most factually contestable limitation in the patent, because "different dates" is a temporal-recency requirement that most photogrammetry references satisfy only implicitly.

The combination nonetheless supplies it:

• Littleworth's express premise is the fusion of heterogeneous imagery. Its abstract states the paper "will discuss" the "problems associated with combining various data sources (ground survey, aerial and close range photography) of differing quality." Images from a ground survey, from aerial flight, and from close-range photography are, by their nature, acquired independently, at different times, and on different dates. This is not an incidental disclosure — it is the article's central methodological theme.
• Littleworth's gantry-crane project illustrates multi-epoch capture in terms. The paper records that for each crane, "[o]ne half of the crane was photographed and then the crane had to be moved to enable coverage to be obtained from the other side," necessitating a reconciliation of the survey datum — i.e., imagery of the same object from different capture events. The paper also notes films "were processed at the end of each day to ensure coverage and to provide the opportunity of retaking any photography," confirming multi-day acquisition campaigns.
• Linder supplies the general practice. Linder's aerial-triangulation chapter (Example 2) teaches block adjustment over a block of photos that, in standard photogrammetric practice, are acquired across multiple flight lines and passes. Linder's book is organized around the reality that a full block is rarely captured in a single instantaneous exposure set.
• Independent practice-based motivation. The '961 specification's own business model depends on a pre-existing imagery archive: the roof estimation service "enter[s] the customer's address into the software program and aerial images of the building are then presented." A commercial archive of a given property is, as a matter of practical necessity, populated by images flown on different dates. A POSITA implementing the claimed system on an archive-based workflow would have arrived at multi-date imagery as the only available option, not as an inventive choice.

Honest limitation on my confidence here: I did not recover the FWD's verbatim reasoning on this specific limitation in this session. I can confirm the Board found claim 1 unpatentable and that the Federal Circuit affirmed on substantial evidence, so the Board necessarily resolved [1.2] against the patent owner. The reconstruction above is my own argument from the reference text, not a quotation of the Board's. If you need the Board's actual treatment of "different dates," pull the FWD at the bannerwitcoff.com URL cited above.

[1.3] Different views, including at least (a) a top plan view and (b) an oblique perspective view

Directly disclosed. The FWD's discussion of the proposed combination expressly addresses "correlating the vertical and oblique aerial images of Littleworth" (quoting the Petition), confirming that Littleworth supplies both view types. Littleworth's use of "vertical aerial" photography (a top plan view) alongside oblique and close-range photography (an oblique perspective view) maps onto this limitation one-to-one.

The '961 specification's own framing — "typically include at least one top plan view 65 and a perspective view 66, also called in the prior art an oblique view or oblique perspective view" — is additional evidence that this pairing was conventional terminology in the prior art, which the patent itself concedes by adopting the prior-art label.

[1.4] At least one image calibrated using calibration information received from the calibration module

Littleworth + Linder together. Analytical photogrammetry is definitionally a calibrated discipline: the analytical plotter requires camera parameters, control points, and orientation data. Littleworth describes deriving reliable geometry despite "geometric restrictions imposed by most CAD systems" and describes a "ground control survey" for the gantry project. Linder fills the calibration gap with specificity:

• Chapter "Geometric principles 1: Flying height, focal length"
• Chapter "Geometric principles 2: Image orientation"
• Chapter "Interior orientation without camera parameters"
• Chapter "Scanning of photos: Scanner types; Geometric resolution; Radiometric resolution"
• "GCP positions for tutorial 2" (ground control points) in the Appendix

The '961 specification's own definition of calibration — "the distance in pixels between two points on the image is converted into a physical length," supplied "as a scale marker on the image itself" — is exactly what Linder's geometric-principles chapters teach. This is a strong mapping because Linder explains not just that you calibrate, but how and why.

[1.5] Performing image analysis on at least two of the images

Linder, verbatim as quoted in the FWD: "the basic task [of image analysis] is to get object (terrain) coordinates of any point in the photo from which you can then calculate geometric data" such as "distances, areas, volumes, slopes[,] and much more." That sentence is a near-verbatim recitation of the limitation. Petitioner argued, and the Board accepted, that Linder describes determining geometric data "for 'any point in the photo'" — i.e., the analysis is of the images themselves.

[1.6] Calculating a pitch for each one of a plurality of roof sections, based on the image analysis

This is the limitation the patent owner most vigorously contested, and the Board's resolution has three independent legs. Any one suffices; together they are overwhelming.

1. Littleworth's express textual disclosure. Page 755 states: "Roof detail was digitised indicating their pitch [and] major details on the roofs themselves." That is an affirmative statement that pitch information was extracted and digitized. The patent owner's answer — that this "merely indicates that an angled roof is generally shown in the visualized model" and that "depicting an angled roof visually in a 3D rendering is not the same as calculating or determining a numerical pitch value" — failed. The Federal Circuit held substantial evidence supported the Board's contrary finding, and, more importantly, held that the Board "did not in fact rely solely upon that reference for the pitch calculation."
2. Inherent necessity in 3D CAD reconstruction. Petitioner argued that "the inclusion of a pitched roof in Littleworth's three-dimensional model of the roof indicates that Littleworth's system made a determination of the pitch of the roof," pointing to Fig. 5 (a pitched roof annotated by Petitioner) and Fig. 2, where "the roof of the modeled structure includes 12 different pitched portions, each having 2 roof sections." The Board credited this: "neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Bajaj specifically explains why interpolation to model and display a pitch does not involve a calculation, or how Littleworth's system could model and display a pitch without calculating it." That rhetorical frame — that you cannot place an inclined plane in 3D space without determining its inclination — is powerful and independently sufficient under KSR's "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."
3. Middlebrook and Linder as explicit alternatives. Middlebrook's Figure 10-3 shows AutoCAD providing dimensions "including angular dimension," and Petitioner argued the CAD system is "modified to annotate the three-dimensional model with numerical values indicating various properties, such as the pitch of angled sections of a model (e.g., a roof)." Linder independently teaches calculating "slopes." This matters because it converts the "inherent disclosure" theory into an express disclosure theory, insulating the finding from an inherency attack.

Why the "no accuracy" construction was dispositive. The patent owner's best argument was that Littleworth's idealized CAD geometry would not yield a pitch accurate enough to be useful in a roof report. The Board answered that "we do not see anything in claim 1 that requires any particular accuracy of the pitch calculation," and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Had the claim been construed to require roofing-industry accuracy, this limitation would have been genuinely contestable. It was not so construed.

[1.7] The plurality of planar roof sections / "each of the plurality"

Littleworth, Fig. 2 — as the FWD records, "the roof of the modeled structure includes 12 different pitched portions, each having 2 roof sections." Littleworth, Fig. 5 — a pitched roof with annotated parts. Numerical plurality is satisfied many times over.

[1.8] Generating and outputting a roof report including the pitch of each section

Middlebrook supplies the report-generation and output step. The FWD quotes Middlebrook: "[i]n drafting — either CAD or drafting — dimensions are special text labels with attached lines that together indicate unambiguously the size of something," and that "as you edit an object — by stretching it for example — AutoCAD automatically updates the measurement displayed in the dimension text label to indicate the object's new size." Petitioner argued that "in the combination, Littleworth's CAD system is modified to include features for generating and outputting a printed document including multiple annotated views of its roof model (i.e., a roof report) based on the teachings of Middlebrook."

Note the tight structural parallel to the '961 specification: the specification's FIGS. 5A–5F report is a set of printed pages each containing a line drawing of the model with annotations. That is the ordinary output of a dimensioned CAD drawing.

[1.9] One or more top plan views of a model annotated with numerical values indicating pitch, area, and length of edges — using at least two different indicia for different types of roof properties

This multilayered limitation is where Middlebrook does the heaviest lifting, and where the combination is at its strongest relative to the patent's commercial embodiment.

• Top plan view. Middlebrook's Fig. 10-3 is characterized by Petitioner as "a view of a model annotated with numerical values for lengths of edges and for pitch." Linder's ortho-image and mosaic functions produce plan views by construction.
• Numerical values for pitch. Middlebrook's angular dimension (Fig. 10-3).
• Numerical values for area. Petitioner argued that a POSITA "would have understood that annotated numerical values for the dimensions of each roof section indicate the area for the respective roof section as they could have been used to calculate the area," and, alternatively, that Linder's teaching that one can "calculate geometric data" including "areas" makes this obvious. Petitioner also offered a functional motivation that the report noted approvingly: the area of each roof portion "would be an important metric for calculating forces on the building."
• Lengths of edges. Middlebrook's linear dimensions.
• "At least two different indicia for different types of roof properties." Petitioner argued: "Middlebrook provides that the annotations for a view of a model include a variety of indicia in addition to the numerical values," and that the combination supplies the "several other types of annotations indicating different dimensions and properties in views of three-dimensional models." The FWD quotes Middlebrook's description of dimensions as having "attached lines" — i.e., leader lines/extension lines as a distinct visual indicium from the numeral itself. Under KSR, differentiating annotation types by distinct visual indicia (numerals vs. leader lines vs. angular arc marks) is the kind of conventional design choice that does not rise to patentability.

---

IV. Motivation to combine — the KSR analysis

The Board's obviousness finding required, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on substantial evidence, a reasoned motivation for each link in the chain. Below are the four motivation theories, in descending order of strength.

A. Littleworth + Linder: Linder supplies the methodology that Littleworth's workflow presumes but does not spell out

This is the strongest link, and it is supported by Dr. Forsyth's testimony that the Board expressly found credible.

• Same field, overlapping subject matter. Both references concern analytical/digital photogrammetry. The Federal Circuit's affirmance specifically held the Board's rejection of EagleView's combination challenge was "supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony."
• Complementary disclosure gap. Littleworth describes what was built (as-built 3D CAD models from analytical photogrammetry) and the commercial projects in which it was done; Linder describes how the underlying operations work — image matching, correlation, orientation, aerial triangulation, ortho-image generation. Dr. Forsyth explained: "the correlation process described by Linder is part of a larger 'image matching algorithm' that is used in '[t]he creation of 3D building models,'" and "[c]reation of this 3D building model therefore indicates that an image analysis based on the correlation was performed." A POSITA implementing Littleworth's system would consult Linder, which is a self-contained applied text on exactly that workflow.
• The combination produces no new function. Fusing Linder's correlation into Littleworth's model-generation pipeline merely makes Littleworth's existing process more explicit and reliable. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
• The Federal Circuit's specific motivation finding. Dr. Forsyth testified — and the Board and the court credited — that a POSITA "would have been motivated to modify Littleworth's system to correlate its aerial images in order to enable a user to 'digitise points, lines and areas for map production or calculate distances, areas, volumes, slopes and much more,' as taught by Linder," and that "this is image analysis because Linder describes that the geometric data is determined for 'any point in the photo.'" That is a textbook KSR motivation: an identified, concrete benefit flowing from the combination.

B. Adding Middlebrook: the reporting step is the ordinary use of the CAD tool the reference already uses

• Littleworth's stated end-use invites it. Littleworth's models were created "suitable for further manipulation and interrogation by the clients CAD system." Dimension annotation is the canonical form of that interrogation. Adding it is not a modification of purpose — it is the purpose.
• Middlebrook is a "For Dummies" reference, which is itself evidence of obviousness. The very existence of a mass-market consumer tutorial for dimensioning AutoCAD models is powerful evidence that the technique was well known, routine, and within the ordinary creativity of a POSITA. KSR treats such "obvious to try" / routine-implementation evidence as sufficient.
• No bodily incorporation. The combination does not require rebuilding Littleworth's photogrammetric pipeline; it requires invoking a standard feature of the CAD system Littleworth already uses.

C. Transversal: the crowded state of the art corroborates obviousness

This is a point the prior sections did not make, and it is worth stating explicitly. The face of the '961 patent itself, as reported by uspto.report's listing of the applicant's cited references, discloses a dense pre-2007 competitive landscape:

• "AeroDach.RTM. Online Roof Evaluation Standard Delivery Format and 3D Data File," Document Version 01.00.2002 — a German online roof evaluation product with a 3D data file output format, predating the priority date by five years.
• Archived Aerowest (aerowest.de) and AeroDach (aerodach.de) websites from 2004 and 2006, translated.
• Precigeo "precigeoRoof" / "How precigeoRoof Works" materials — again, an online roof measurement product.
• Pictometry press releases (Jan. 22, 2004) announcing "Software and Web-based Solution for Engineers, Architects, and Planners."
• Scholze et al., "A Probabilistic Approach to Building Roof Reconstruction Using Semantic Labelling," Pattern Recognition 2449/2002 (automatic roof reconstruction).
• Henricsson et al., "Project Amobe: Strategies, Current Status, and Future Work" (automatic house reconstruction), IAPRS Vol. XXXI (1996).

When the patent applicant's own information disclosure statement identifies multiple contemporaneous commercial and academic systems performing automated roof evaluation from aerial imagery, that is strong evidence of a predictable, well-trodden solution space — the paradigm KSR case. It also bears on the secondary-considerations analysis (§ VI).

D. Claim 21/22's ordering requirement — motivation and sufficiency

Claims 21 and 22 added a sequence argument: that "correlating" must be performed before and as the basis for the "performing image analysis" step. The Board rejected it, and I think correctly, in a way that is directly transferable to any future § 103 challenge on this family:

• The Board's holding: "even if claims 21 and 22 require that the 'image analysis' must be a distinct action separate from and based on the correlation, the proposed combination satisfies this claim element."
• The reasoning: In the combination, "Linder is applied to Littleworth to teach correlating Littleworth's vertical and oblique aerial images." Dr. Forsyth: "the correlation process described by Linder is part of a larger 'image matching algorithm' that is used in '[t]he creation of 3D building models,'" and "[c]reation of this 3D building model therefore indicates that an image analysis based on the correlation was performed." Subsequent steps — producing maps and "geom[etric] data" — are "subsequent steps that are 'based on' the correlation."
• Procedural point worth noting: The Board also held that "Petitioner's Reply merely expanded on these points made in the Petition, and does not set forth an entirely new theory that was absent from the Petition." This forecloses a later argument that the obviousness theory was improperly raised in reply.

---

V. Dependent and remaining independent claims

Note on the residual claim set. The Board's FWD addressed claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21–22, 24–25, 27, and 29. The Board's table (partially visible in the FWD extract) lists claims against "35 U.S.C. §" and "Reference(s)/Basis." Any claims not enumerated in that table were not challenged in IPR2022-01009 and are unaffected by the Federal Circuit's February 3, 2026 affirmance. I have not confirmed which claims, if any, fall into that residual category — see § VIII.

---

VI. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

The prior sections did not address this, and it is a substantive part of any complete § 103 opinion.

• No nexus-bearing evidence proved dispositive at the PTAB. The Board's analysis proceeded on the prima facie case; nothing in the FWD indicates a finding of unexpected results, copying, industry praise, or long-felt-but-unmet need that overcame the obviousness showing.
• Commercial success cuts the wrong way here. If EagleView were to argue commercial success, the crowded prior-art landscape identified in its own IDS (AeroDach 2002 online roof evaluation; Precigeo; Pictometry; Scholze; Henricsson) would supply a strong rebuttal: success is attributable to business execution, imagery-archive scale, and sales channels, not to any claimed technical advance. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
• Simultaneous independent invention. Nearmap, EagleView/Pictometry, GAF, and the several pre-2007 German and academic systems all converged on substantially the same solution. Independent near-contemporaneous invention by multiple actors is classically probative of obviousness.
• The one genuine candidate for objective indicia would be the specification's automated label-sizing/placement/orientation technique — "automatically determining an optimal or near-optimal label font size, label position, and/or label orientation ... by preventing or reducing the occurrence of labels that overlap." That is arguably a non-trivial algorithmic contribution. But note: the label-optimization passage appears in the specification's FIG. 8/routine 800 discussion and is described as something that "may" be done; it is not clearly claimed in the limitations the Board addressed. If any residual, unchallenged claim recites that label-optimization feature with specificity, it would be the one place where a fresh § 103 challenge faces real work. I flag this as the highest-value lead for anyone analyzing the surviving claim set.

---

VII. Summary table — claim 1 limitation to reference mapping

---

VIII. Contradictions, corrections, and explicit uncertainties

Corrections/refinements to the previously generated sections:

1. Littleworth reference identity — refinement, not contradiction. The prior summary gave the title as "Three-Dimensional Mapping and As-Built Computer Modelling by Analytical Photogrammetry." I confirm that title and identify it as the ISPRS Congress proceedings paper (Vol. XXIX, Part 5, pp. 754–757), matching the FWD's "Ex 1005, 755" pinpoint cite. There is a separate, similarly-named Littleworth & Chandler article in The Photogrammetric Record 15(85):65–76 (1995) that is not the reference at issue. Anyone verifying should use the ISPRS PDF.

2. Linder — consistent. The summary described Linder as Digital Photogrammetry Theory and Applications. Confirmed: Wilfried Linder, Springer, 1st ed. 2003, ISBN 3-540-00810-1.

3. Middlebrook — still unverified. I could not locate independent bibliographic confirmation for AutoCAD 2005 for Dummies in this session. The FWD's detailed quotations strongly corroborate its content and existence, but I flag the citation as unconfirmed at the imprint level.

4. Date discrepancy — flagged, not resolved. The task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." My operating date is September 16, 2026. Separately, one search result (scalejuris.com) reports an EagleView–Nearmap settlement announced May 28, 2026, terminating the District of Utah action. That reported date is after the task's stated current date. Either the task's stated date is stale, or the settlement report is unreliable. I would not treat the settlement as established fact without primary confirmation — and in any event it post-dates and does not disturb the February 3, 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance, which is the controlling validity event for § 103 purposes here.

Open items I could not close:

1. Verbatim text of independent claims 24 and 29 — not retrieved. I have deliberately avoided paraphrasing their scope. Pull them from the Google Patents "Claims" tab or USPTO PatentCenter before relying on any mapping for these claims.
2. Full text of dependent claims 2, 3–6, 8–20, 23, 25–28 — not verified.
3. The Board's specific treatment of the "different times and different dates" limitation [1.2] — my analysis in § III [1.2] is my own reconstruction from the reference texts, not a quotation of the FWD. This is the limitation most worth reading the FWD on directly.
4. Which claims, if any, survive unchallenged — the FWD covers the enumerated claims; the residual set is unconfirmed. See § VI for why the label-optimization feature is the key lead there.
5. Live PACER/PTAB docket and the FWD as filed — my sources are indexed reproductions (bannerwitcoff.com PDF, ptacts.uspto.gov transcript) plus secondary commentary (VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, scalejuris.com, Bloomberg Law). Confirm against the native PTAB and CAFC documents before relying on any date or holding for a filing.

Primary sources relied on in this section:

• FWD, IPR2022-01009 (Patent 8,670,961 B2): https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPR2022-01009.pdf
• PTAB hearing transcript, IPR2022-01009/IPR2022-01090: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549767](/patent/1549767)/download-documents
• Littleworth & Chandler (ISPRS): https://isprs.org/proceedings/XXIX/congress/part5/754_XXIX-part5.pdf
• Linder bibliographic record: https://catalog.library.tamu.edu/Record/in00003548985/Details
• CAFC affirmance coverage: https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-fed-cir-obviousness-affirmed-in-aerial-roof-measuring-dispute/ipm010a41168f4e3a49bb883a38912adca741
• '961 cited references (IDS): https://uspto.report/patent/grant/8670961

---

Bottom line

The '961 patent is obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a) over Littleworth in view of Linder and Middlebrook, on four independent and mutually reinforcing grounds: (1) Littleworth expressly discloses digitized roof pitch from aerial imagery used to build 3D CAD models of pitched roofs with multiple sections; (2) modeling an inclined plane in a 3D CAD system necessarily determines its inclination, satisfying "calculate a pitch" under a construction requiring no particular precision; (3) Linder supplies the image correlation, orientation/calibration, and geometric-data-computation steps, with a concrete, articulated motivation to incorporate them; and (4) Middlebrook supplies dimension annotation and report generation using established CAD functionality. The Federal Circuit affirmed this holding on February 3, 2026. The principal analytic soft spot — the "different times and different dates" requirement of claim 1 — is met by Littleworth's express heterogeneous-data-source methodology but is the limitation on which a future challenger or defender should focus.