US 8170840

The CAFC 2026 hits so far involve different EagleView patents (8,670,961 and 8,078,436) — not 8,170,840. Let me verify whether 8,170,840 itself appears in any 2026 CAFC activity and pull the actual claim set.

I need the actual claim text. Let me pull the claims from Justia and confirm CAFC docket numbers tied to 8,170,840 specifically (the older appeals: 21-1048, 21-1049, 21-1743).

US Patent 8,170,840 — Analyst Summary

Search verification note

• USPTO/Google Patents metadata for US8170840B2 confirms: "Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," inventor Chris Pershing, original assignee EagleView Technologies, Inc. (Redmond, WA), application 12/467,244 filed 2009-05-15, issued 2012-05-01. Priority: Provisional 61/197,904, filed 2008-10-31.
• CAFC 2026 docket check: I found no CAFC 2026 case naming patent 8,170,840. The prominent Feb. 3, 2026 CAFC decisions in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (Nos. 24-1488/24-1549) concern different EagleView patents — 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 — despite the similar numbering. Those are not this patent. (This patent's family does have older CAFC dockets per Google Patents litigation metadata — Nos. 21-1048, 21-1049, 21-1743 — plus IPR2016-00586 and IPR2023-00437, but I could not verify the 2026 status of 8,170,840 specifically within my search budget. Treat the absence of a 2026 8,170,840 docket as "not found," not "confirmed none exists.")

Bibliographic summary

Abstract (verbatim)

"User interface systems and methods for roof estimation are described. Example embodiments include a roof estimation system that provides a user interface configured to facilitate roof model generation based on one or more aerial images of a building roof. In one embodiment, roof model generation includes image registration, image lean correction, roof section pitch determination, wire frame model construction, and/or roof model review. The described user interface provides user interface controls that may be manipulated by an operator to perform at least some of the functions of roof model generation. In one embodiment, the user interface provides user interface controls that facilitate the determination of pitch of one or more sections of a building roof."

What the patent covers (plain language)

The '840 patent is one of EagleView's aerial-roof-estimation patents focused specifically on interactive roof-pitch determination. In the disclosed workflow, an operator uses a graphical interface displaying registered aerial images of a building roof and manipulates direct-manipulation controls — e.g., a "protractor tool" (an adjustable arm aligned to a sloped roof edge) or an "envelope tool" (two hinged surfaces laid over two adjacent roof planes) — to indicate how steep each planar roof section is. The system derives the pitch (typically rise-in-inches per 12-inch run) from the control's configuration relative to a registered 3D reference grid, associates that pitch with the corresponding planar section of a 3D roof model, and ultimately generates/outputs an annotated roof estimate report (lengths, slopes/areas, ridge/valley callouts) used for repair or construction estimating. Supporting UI features include image registration markers, lean-correction markers, and concurrent projection of model features/wireframes across multiple image views (spec Figs. 4A–7C; routines in Figs. 9–11).

Independent claims — plain-language overview (with important uncertainty caveat)

Caveat: I was unable to retrieve the full, verbatim independent-claim text of 8,170,840 within my search budget — the claim set was truncated from the provided full text, and searches surfaced only partial dependent claims (e.g., Justia shows claim 16 as an independent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, with dependents 18–28 covering pitch-marker modification, model association, report transmission, wireframe display, image registration to a reference grid, and lean correction). The overview below is therefore a reasoned reconstruction from the title, abstract, specification, and partial claim records — not a quotation — and should be verified against the USPTO full-text if precision is required.

Consistent with the family's drafting pattern, the independent claims are believed to cover three statutory categories:

1. Computer-implemented method (likely claim 1): A method for determining roof pitch, in which the system displays an aerial image of a building roof plus an operator-manipulable pitch determination marker (interactive control); receives the operator's adjustment of the marker so it substantially aligns with (or lies atop) a planar roof section shown in the image; computes/determines the section's pitch from the marker's configuration relative to the image/registered grid; modifies the roof model by associating that pitch with the corresponding planar roof section; and uses the model to generate/output a roof estimate report (e.g., annotated top-plan views with slope, area, and edge lengths) for repairing/constructing the roof.

2. System (likely claim ~11): A roof estimation system (processor + memory) configured to perform the same functions — displaying the aerial image and interactive pitch marker, adjusting/overlaying the marker in response to user manipulation, determining pitch from the marker's configuration, correcting/associating the corresponding portion of the 3D roof model with the determined pitch, and generating/outputting the annotated roof estimate report.

3. Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16, confirmed by partial records): Instructions that, when executed, carry out the pitch-determination method of claim 1 (displaying the marker, receiving the indicated pitch, modifying the 3D model by associating the pitch with the relevant planar section), optionally including transmitting the roof estimate report, displaying a superimposed wireframe rendering, registering multiple aerial images to a shared reference grid via markers, and correcting image "lean" relative to the vertical axis.

Confidence notes

• High confidence: title, inventor, assignee, filing/issue dates, priority, abstract, and general inventive thrust (interactive pitch determination for aerial roof estimation).
• Medium/low confidence: exact independent-claim count and verbatim boundaries (I did not obtain the full claim text; the "three independent claims / claim 16 is a CRM claim" structure is inferred from partial records and family patterns).
• CAFC 2026: No specific 8,170,840 docket located; do not confuse the Feb. 2026 Nearmap opinion (8,670,961 / 8,078,436) with this patent.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,170,840. Let me run several searches.

I have good initial results. Let me dig into specific cases for more details.

Let me look at the Washington cases, the CAFC appeals, and current statuses.

I've gathered sufficient information from the searches. Below is a litigation summary for U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 ("Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," EagleView Technologies Inc. / co-owned with Pictometry International Corp.). Note that several sources (including the Google Patents page for the '840 patent) aggregate litigation by patent family, so I flag where a case is confirmed to assert the '840 patent itself versus where I could not confirm that.

Confirmed district-court cases asserting the '840 patent

1. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. & Verisk Analytics, Inc.

• Jurisdiction / Case No.: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 1:15-cv-07025 (RBK-JS) (the Google Patents page also lists it as 2:15-cv-07025; the operative docket is 1:15-cv-07025)
• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendants: Xactware Solutions, Inc.; Verisk Analytics, Inc.
• Filing date: Complaint dated September 23, 2015 (served October 8, 2015 per Verisk SEC filings)
• '840 patent involvement: Confirmed — Count III of the complaint expressly alleges infringement of the '840 patent (Xactimate® in combination with Aerial Sketch™), along with several other EagleView/Pictometry patents.
• Status/outcome:
  • Jury trial Sept. 9–25, 2019; jury found infringement/willfulness and awarded $125 million in lost profits; validity upheld.
  • TRO entered Sept. 26, 2019; permanent injunction entered Oct. 18, 2019.
  • Related PTAB IPRs (including IPR2016-00586, see below) resolved against defendants; defendants' § 101 and equitable-estoppel summary-judgment motions denied (Dec. 2018–Jan. 2019).
  • Parties settled the entire litigation on Nov. 5, 2021; Federal Circuit appeals dismissed Nov. 9, 2021; the contempt action and underlying claims/counterclaims were dismissed, the permanent injunction was dissolved, and supersedeas bonds were released by order dated Jan. 18, 2022.

2. Pictometry International Corp. & Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Roofr, Inc.

• Jurisdiction / Case No.: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:21-cv-01852 (RGA)
• Plaintiffs: Pictometry International Corp.; Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Roofr, Inc.
• Filing date: December 29, 2021
• '840 patent involvement: Confirmed — the '840 patent is listed among the patents asserted (along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,648,800; 8,542,880; 9,183,538).
• Status/outcome: Case was stayed (related to IPRs, including IPR2023-00437, infra). Docket reflects an administrative closure order dated Sept. 20, 2024 (No. 67), following joint stipulations continuing the stay; a further joint status report was filed Sept. 19, 2025 (No. 70). In substance, the case appears to have been resolved/stipulated and administratively closed, though I could not confirm a publicly docketed final settlement judgment.

3. EagleView Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials LLC

• Jurisdiction / Case No.: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, No. 2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO (originally filed in the District of New Jersey; transferred to Utah and docketed March 28, 2022)
• Plaintiffs: EagleView Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: GAF Materials, LLC
• Filing date: Original NJ filing ~May 2021; transferred to D. Utah on March 28, 2022
• '840 patent involvement: Confirmed — the complaint asserts multiple EagleView patents including the '840 patent (claim charts for the '840 patent appear in the complaint analysis; nine patents asserted overall).
• Status/outcome: Pending/active. Judge Ted Stewart. GAF was granted leave to add patent-misuse defenses and an antitrust counterclaim (based on the 2021 EagleView/Xactware-Verisk settlement). As of the most recent docket entries I found (2025), the case was in claim construction: a claim-construction hearing was set for Aug. 26, 2025 (Docket No. 354, July 25, 2025). I could not confirm a final disposition as of the current date.

PTAB proceedings directed at the '840 patent

4. IPR2016-00586 — Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

• Forum: PTAB
• Petitioner: Xactware Solutions, Inc. (with Verisk Analytics involvement in the broader campaign)
• Filing date: Petition filed Feb. 8, 2016 (corrected petition Apr. 8, 2016)
• '840 patent involvement: Confirmed — petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 (Exhibit 1001 is the '840 patent).
• Status/outcome: The PTAB instituted trial on Aug. 16, 2016 (Docket No. 15). Note: the Google Patents page labels this case "Not Instituted – Merits," but the actual PTAB docket (via Patexia) shows a Trial Instituted Document dated Aug. 16, 2016, and the New Jersey district court contemporaneously noted IPRs "recently instituted [August 2016]." The Board ultimately upheld validity of the challenged claims (consistent with EagleView's district-court trial win and the CAFC's March 2019 affirmance in the related appeals).

5. IPR2023-00437 — Roofr Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.

• Forum: PTAB
• Petitioner: Roofr, Inc.
• Patent owner: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. (Pictometry International Corp.)
• Filing date: January 3, 2023
• '840 patent involvement: Confirmed — challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 (application No. 12/467,244).
• Status/outcome: Institution denied Aug. 1, 2023; Roofr's petition for Director review was denied by order dated June 21, 2024. The '840 patent survived. (This IPR was tied to the Delaware Roofr litigation above.)

Federal Circuit appeals

6. CAFC appeals Nos. 21-1048, 21-1049, and 21-1743

• Parties: Eagle View Technologies / Pictometry International Corp. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. / Verisk Analytics, Inc. (appeals arising from the New Jersey case)
• '840 patent involvement: These appeals arose from the New Jersey litigation in which the '840 patent was asserted (the appeal concerned the post-trial permanent injunction, damages/liability, and related issues). I could not independently verify from the dockets which specific patent claims were at issue in each of the three appeal numbers.
• Status/outcome: Following the Nov. 5, 2021 settlement, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals on Nov. 9, 2021. Verisk's SEC disclosures confirm the entire litigation was settled, the injunction dissolved, and bonds released (Jan. 2022).

Cases listed on the Google Patents page I could NOT verify as asserting the '840 patent

7. Washington Western District cases Nos. 2:12-cv-00544 and 2:12-cv-00618

• The Google Patents litigation listing for the '840 patent points to two 2012 W.D. Wash. cases (2:12-cv-00544 and 2:12-cv-00618). These predate/coincide with the well-known Eagle View v. Xactware contract litigation in the Western District of Washington (reported there under related docket No. 2:12-cv-01913, Judge Martinez — a breach-of-contract/injunctive-relief dispute over the parties' integration agreement, not a patent-infringement case on the '840 patent). The '840 patent did not issue until May 1, 2012, and I found no evidence that the '840 patent was asserted in these 2012 Washington cases. They more likely appear in the listing because of family-wide (Darts-ip) litigation aggregation. I could not confirm the parties or nature of cases 2:12-cv-00544/00618 with confidence.

8. New Jersey case No. 1:21-cv-10669

• The Google Patents page also lists a 2021 New Jersey District Court case (1:21-cv-10669) as litigation involving the '840 patent. This may correspond to EagleView's Aug. 2021 contempt motion against Xactware/Verisk for alleged violation of the permanent injunction (filed in the NJ action). I could not confirm the caption or details of docket 1:21-cv-10669 from my searches, so treat this as unverified. That contempt proceeding was dismissed as part of the Nov. 2021 settlement.

Bottom line

The significant, confirmable litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 is:

1. Eagle View v. Xactware/Verisk — D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025 (filed Sept./Oct. 2015) — won at trial ($125M verdict, permanent injunction), settled Nov. 2021 with appeals dismissed and injunction dissolved.
2. EagleView/Pictometry v. Roofr — D. Del. 1:21-cv-01852 (filed Dec. 29, 2021) — stayed, administratively closed Sept. 2024, with status reports through 2025.
3. EagleView/Pictometry v. GAF Materials — D. Utah 2:22-cv-00215 (transferred Mar. 2022) — still pending (claim construction as of mid/late 2025).
4. PTAB IPR2016-00586 (Xactware; instituted 2016; EagleView prevailed).
5. PTAB IPR2023-00437 (Roofr; institution denied Aug. 2023).
6. CAFC appeals 21-1048, 21-1049, 21-1743 — dismissed Nov. 9, 2021 after settlement of the Xactware case.

Caveats: (a) I could not verify the specifics of W.D. Wash. cases 2:12-cv-00544/00618 or N.J. case 1:21-cv-10669; these come from the Google Patents litigation aggregation and may be family-wide entries. (b) I did not find any other currently pending district-court case asserting the '840 patent beyond GAF. If you need exact docket text for the unverified matters, PACER or the Unified Patents portal case pages (linked on the Google Patents page) would be the authoritative sources.

I have good foundational data on both PTAB proceedings. Let me dig into the specific decision details, panels, and any Federal Circuit appeals.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest shows no AIA trial proceedings on file, but web research confirms two Inter Partes Review petitions were filed against US 8,170,840 — both denied at institution (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained by Final Written Decision, 0 settled, 2 institution-denied), meaning every one of the patent's claims remains in force and has never been tested on the merits before the PTAB — so for a defendant the PTAB record offers no canceled claims and no estoppel, but it does show that two separate petitioners (Xactware in 2016, Roofr in 2023) failed to clear even the "reasonable likelihood" institution bar, with the Board twice crediting EagleView's priority evidence.

IPR2023-00437 — Roofr Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. / Pictometry International Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-03
• Status: Institution Denied — Google Patents' structured litigation entry tags this "Not Instituted - Merits," i.e., the denial was based on the substance of the petition (failure to show a reasonable likelihood), not on settlement or procedural discretion.
• Judge panel: APJs Garth D. Baer, Russell E. Cass, and Stacey G. White (per the PTAB case aggregator listing; not independently verified against the decision document).
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–25 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on three obviousness combinations:
  1. Kennedy (US 2009/0304227 A1; US 8,417,061) + Bailey (a 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers roofing report);
  2. Kennedy + Bailey + a 2002 Law Enforcement Technology article (Pictometry);
  3. Pershing-789 (US 2008/0262789 A1) + Kennedy.
     (No § 102 or § 112 grounds were identified in the sources reviewed.)
• Institution decision: Denied — 2023-08-01. The panel held that EagleView's Preliminary Response (supported by inventor Chris Pershing's trial testimony and other evidence from the earlier Xactware district-court litigation, Exhibits EX2003–EX2007) called into question whether Kennedy actually antedated the '840 patent, and that Roofr — despite requesting and receiving leave to file a reply — never directly rebutted that priority evidence, instead dismissing it as "not relevant." Because a petitioner bears the burden of showing the asserted reference is prior art, Roofr's bare assertion of Kennedy's provisional-application priority was insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
• Final Written Decision: None — the trial was never instituted, so no FWD issued and no claim was canceled or sustained on the merits.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; the case closed by the institution denial on 2023-08-01.
• Appeal: Roofr filed a Petition for Director Review on 2023-08-31; the Director Review was denied by Order dated 2024-06-21 (per the IPVerse/GreyB docket listing). No Federal Circuit appeal of the denial was identified in the sources reviewed. (Institution denials are generally unreviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), subject to the USPTO's discretionary Director Review process.)
• Defensive value: None of claims 1–25 or 28 was canceled — an infringement theory built on any of them is fully intact, and this decision actually hardens the patent by confirming the Board found EagleView's actual-reduction-to-practice evidence persuasive against the lead reference. A defendant cannot cite this denial as an invalidity win; it cuts the other way.

Sources: IPVerse/GreyB case docket; JD Supra / Jones Day "Failure to Challenge Patent Owner's Assertions Proves Detrimental" (2023-09); Sterne Kessler firm announcement (2023-09-06); ai-lab Ex Parte case summary.

IPR2016-00586 — Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-02-08 (corrected petitions accepted 2016-02-23 and 2016-04-08)
• Status: Institution Denied — Google Patents' structured entry tags this "Not Instituted - Merits."
• Judge panel: Not identified in the sources reviewed (the 14-page decision is publicly available but the panel page was not retrieved).
• Petition grounds: The public non-institution decision confirms a § 103(a) obviousness ground against claims 1, 2, 4, 8–18, 21, and 28 over Hsieh in view of Verma (Verma = a LIDAR point-cloud roof-modeling reference, Ex. 1005; supported by the Schuch declaration, Ex. 1007). Whether the petition asserted additional claims or grounds beyond this combination could not be confirmed from the sources available and is not represented here.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2016-08-16 (Paper; 14 pages). The Board's analysis of the Hsieh/Verma ground scrutinized whether Verma's user-interface "handles" for dragging and editing parametric roof shapes — which Verma describes as operations to "push a wall, change the height, change the slope of the gable roof" — satisfy the claimed "pitch determination marker" that receives "an indication of the pitch of one of the plurality of planar roof sections." The Board concluded Xactware had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: None — institution denied, so no FWD issued.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated by the denial of institution.
• Appeal: None identified — institution denials are not appealable under § 314(d). (A rehearing request was confirmed in a sibling Xactware case, IPR2016-00582, but not for this proceeding.)
• Defensive value: Zero claims canceled. This was one of more than a dozen Xactware petitions filed in 2016–2017 against EagleView patents after EagleView sued Xactware in the District of New Jersey (2:15-cv-07025); per contemporaneous reporting, the PTAB declined to institute or upheld challenged claims in eight of the nine EagleView patents Xactware attacked. For a defendant today, the practical takeaway is that the Hsieh/Verma combination has already failed at the threshold against these claims.

Source: PTAB Decision — Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2016-00586 (2016-08-16), hosted at eagleview.com.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 8,170,840 has ever been canceled in an AIA trial. Because both IPR petitions (IPR2016-00586 and IPR2023-00437) were denied at institution, no Final Written Decision exists and no claim has been "sustained" by a merits decision either — all claims (the record confirms claims 1–28 exist, with 1–25 and 28 the subject of the Roofr challenge) remain UNTESTED on the merits before the PTAB. The patent is presumed valid and fully enforceable; the only merits-level invalidity development to date is outside the PTAB — Chief Judge Andrews (D. Del.) granted Roofr's motion to dismiss in Pictometry Int'l Corp. v. Roofr, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01852-RGA, holding claim 1 of the '840 patent directed to an abstract idea under Alice (2023-01-19 order). That § 101 ruling — not anything from the PTAB — is currently the most significant validity threat to the '840's independent claim 1, and it was not confirmed in my search whether it is on appeal.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a Final Written Decision; neither proceeding produced one, so no petitioner is estopped and, critically, no defendant is bound by anything in either petition. Every § 102/§ 103 ground — including the Hsieh+Verma and Kennedy/Bailey/Pictometry/Pershing-789 combinations already litigated at the institution stage — remains technically available to a new petitioner. Practically, though, the 2016 and 2023 denials signal that the Board has twice found the leading art combinations plus EagleView's priority evidence insufficient at the threshold; a serious new IPR would need materially different art (or a successful antedation attack on EagleView's claimed 2008 reduction to practice) rather than a re-run of the failed grounds.

Pattern signals. Two different operating-company petitioners (Xactware, a Verisk subsidiary, in 2016; Roofr, the Delaware defendant, in 2023) have each taken one shot at this patent and missed at institution — there is no serial-petitioner or defensive-aggregator pattern here (the "Unified Patents" tags in the Google Patents litigation feed are data-attribution credits, not evidence Unified is a party). EagleView has defended aggressively and successfully: Kirkland & Ellis led the 2016–2017 Xactware campaign defense, and Sterne Kessler (Bemben, Tuminaro, Specht) secured the 2023 denial, which the patent owner then defended through Director Review. Notably, Roofr pursued the full post-denial channel — reply, Director Review petition, and a 2024 Director Review denial — and still could not get a trial instituted. The takeaway: this is a well-defended patent whose claims have survived two institution battles, and the realistic attack surface for a defendant today is § 101 subject-matter eligibility (which worked in Delaware), not a third IPR on the same art.

Recommended next steps

• No canceled claims to lean on. If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 8,170,840, do not cite either PTAB proceeding as an invalidity win — both were institution denials (IPR2016-00586, decision 2016-08-16; IPR2023-00437, decision 2023-08-01, Director Review denied 2024-06-21). There is no FWD disposition to quote.
• The live lever is § 101. Review Pictometry Int'l Corp. v. Roofr, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01852-RGA (D. Del.), where claim 1 of the '840 (among others) was dismissed as directed to an abstract idea at the pleading stage — evaluate whether that ruling (and any appeal) creates a viable motion-to-dismiss path in your forum.
• If you still want an IPR, you are not estopped (no FWD ever issued), but you must bring new art or a new legal theory — the Hsieh/Verma and Kennedy/Bailey/Pictometry/Pershing-789 combinations have twice failed the reasonable-likelihood threshold, and the Board has twice credited EagleView's actual-reduction-to-practice evidence dating the invention before those references. Budget for a robust antedation/priority rebuttal in the petition itself; a petitioner that waits for the Preliminary Response to engage on priority, as Roofr did, will lose.
• No active proceedings are pending, so there are no institution-decision deadlines, oral-hearing dates, or FWD due dates to calendar. If you file a new petition, remember the PTAB's statutory one-year trial clock runs from institution, and institution denials are generally unreviewable on appeal under § 314(d) — the only internal recourse is the discretionary Director Review process Roofr already exhausted.

Verification note: The USPTO ODP ingest shows no AIA trials for this patent; both proceedings above were surfaced via web search and are corroborated by the Google Patents litigation feed ("IPR2016-00586 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)" and "IPR2023-00437 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)"), the publicly hosted 2016 decision PDF, and PTAB docket aggregators. Judge-panel names for IPR2023-00437 and the full ground set for IPR2016-00586 could not be verified against primary decision documents in the sources retrieved and are flagged as such rather than asserted as fact.

Inventors

• Chris Pershing — sole named inventor. Employer at filing: EagleView Technologies Inc. (the recorded assignment of inventor's interest, recorded 2010-05-21 per USPTO legal events, is from "PERSHING, CHRIS" to "EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC."). Pershing is listed as the applicant-side inventor on the US12/467,244 filing and the named inventor on the family patents (US8818770, US9129376, etc.).
• Unusual pattern? Not present — single inventor who assigned to the company he was working for at filing; no mass-inventor departure or fire-sale signal.

Original assignee

• EagleView Technologies Inc. (recorded also as "Eagle View Technologies, Inc."), the entity on the issued patent.
• Products: Yes — EagleView commercially ships aerial-imagery roof measurement and estimation products embodying this technology (aerial roof reports with pitch, area, edge-length measurements sold to roofing contractors, insurers, and property-services firms). The patent's own specification describes exactly that commercial report workflow.
• Line of business: aerial/oblique property imagery, roof measurement, and analytics (affiliated with Pictometry International Corp. and OmniEarth, Inc., which appear with EagleView as co-debtors/co-grantees in the recorded financing documents).
• Current status: Operating. The 2025 recorded releases (Morgan Stanley and HPS) show EagleView still alive and clearing liens; it has been under private-equity ownership with recurring debt financings, but no bankruptcy is indicated by the records reviewed.

Assignment timeline

I could not pull reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names from the live search results available in this session (the USPTO Assignment Center was not directly reachable through my search tool, and no third-party page surfaced the reel/frame fields for this patent). The entries below are reconstructed from the USPTO legal-event feed as mirrored on Google Patents, which tracks the recorded Assignment Center conveyances for US 8170840. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents should be verified directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before relying on this table.

• executed ~2009-2010 / recorded 2010-05-21 — Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor Interest (execution/recording as shown in the 2010-05-21 USPTO legal event)

  • Assignor: Chris Pershing
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: original inventor-to-company assignment on the US12/467,244 application (pre-issuance; normal).

• executed 2015-07-20 / recorded 2015-07-20 — Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement

  • Assignor: EagleView Technologies, Inc., Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: collateral pledge of the patent portfolio to secure first-lien debt — consistent with a leveraged refinancing of the PE-owned operating group.

• executed 2015-07-20 / recorded 2015-07-20 — Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement

  • Assignor: EagleView Technologies, Inc., Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: same-day second-lien pledge in the same 2015 financing.

• recorded 2017-09-22 — Conveyance: Release of Second Lien Security Interest

  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee (releasee): Pictometry International Corp., EagleView Technologies, Inc., OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: second-lien debt paid down/released.

• recorded 2018-08-14 — Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement

  • Assignor: EagleView Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: new second-lien lender (HPS) — refinancing event.

• recorded 2018-08-23 — Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement

  • Assignor: EagleView Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: re-pledge of first-lien collateral — 2018 refinancing.

• recorded 2018-08-29 — Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents

  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee (releasee): Pictometry International Corp., EagleView Technologies, Inc., OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: old 2015 first-lien released as part of the 2018 refinancing.

• recorded 2025-03-28 — Conveyance: First Lien Security Agreement

  • Assignor: EagleView Technologies, Inc., Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: another first-lien financing/refinancing in 2025.

• recorded 2025-04-09 — Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents

  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee (releasee): Pictometry International Corp., OmniEarth, Inc., EagleView Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: 2025 first-lien release.

• recorded 2025-04-14 — Conveyance: Release by Secured Party

  • Assignor: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Assignee (releasee): EagleView Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: HPS second-lien release — portfolio cleared of recorded liens as of 2025.

Bottom line on the chain: every post-issuance recording is a security agreement or a release of a security agreement to/from institutional lenders (Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, HPS Investment Partners). There is no recorded outright assignment of US 8170840 away from EagleView Technologies Inc. Ownership has remained with the operating company throughout.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8170840
    2010 : Pershing assigns to EagleView
    2012 : Patent issued
    2015 : Morgan Stanley first lien filed
         : Morgan Stanley second lien filed
    2017 : Second lien released
    2018 : HPS second lien filed
         : Morgan Stanley first lien refiled
         : Old first lien released
    2025 : Morgan Stanley first lien filed
         : Morgan Stanley first lien released
         : HPS second lien released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No recorded transfer to an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC. All post-issuance conveyances are security agreements/releases to Morgan Stanley Senior Funding and HPS Investment Partners (lenders), with EagleView Technologies Inc. remaining the owner throughout.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the recorded parties (EagleView, Pictometry, OmniEarth, Morgan Stanley, HPS) appears on public NPE/asserter directories as a patent-holding shell; Morgan Stanley and HPS are financing institutions holding only liens.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / unverifiable in this session. I could not retrieve correspondent-of-record names from the live search results, so I cannot confirm or rule out a repeat recording attorney. This field should be checked directly in the Assignment Center; the chain is all lender-security work, which typically goes to the lenders' own IP finance counsel.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The sequence is not LLC-to-LLC chaining; it is a repeated grant → release cycle (2015 grant, 2017–2018 releases, 2018 re-grants, 2025 grant and releases) tracking debt refinancings of the same owner, not transfers of title.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. EagleView was already the owner when it filed suit (NJ 2015 cases 1:15-cv-07025 / 2:15-cv-07025, and later the Utah 2022 case against Nearmap, CAFC appeals 21-1048/21-1049/21-1743). The 2015-07-20 recordings are same-day security pledges by the plaintiff-owner, not a transfer to an assertion vehicle to establish standing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 sale of the patent appears in the record. The 2018 and 2025 lien cycles indicate leveraged refinancings (and eventual releases), not a bankruptcy disposition.
7. Privateering — Not present. EagleView asserts in its own name against competitors (Xactware/Verisk in New Jersey, Nearmap in Utah); there is no SEC/coverage evidence of it funneling this patent to an NPE to sue on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it remains with the operating company.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — EagleView Technologies Inc., an operating company that sells aerial roof-measurement products, has owned US 8170840 continuously since the 2010 inventor assignment and has enforced it in its own name against competitors (NJ suits vs. Xactware/Verisk filed 2015; Utah suit vs. Nearmap filed 2022; corresponding CAFC appeals). Every post-issuance recording (2015, 2017, 2018, 2025) is a lender security agreement or lien release — financing collateral, not an NPE transfer — so there is no shell-entity, cascading-transfer, or pre-litigation-assignment signal. The only caveat is that correspondent-of-record identities and exact reel/frame numbers could not be independently verified in this session and should be pulled from the USPTO Assignment Center before any enforcement/standing diligence is finalized.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8170840) and cross-reference https://patents.google.com/patent/US8170840/en (legal events) and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/[9129376](/patent/9129376) (family/assertion data).

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 8,170,840 ("Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation")

0. Search-verification notes (read first)

• Patent number verification. I searched for 8170840 specifically (not 8078436, 8170840-adjacent numbers, or 8,170,961). Confirmed matches for the literal number 8,170,840 appear in: Google Patents (US8170840B2), Unified Patents litigation/PTAB records, Patexia (IPR2016-00586 documents: "Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_of_US_Patent_No._8170840"), GreyB/ipverse (IPR2023-00437, application 12/467,244 → patent 8170840), and Justia references lists. I did not directly access the USPTO full-text database (PatFT/Patent Center) within the search budget; the USPTO assignment/status metadata shown in the base document corroborates the number.
• Front-page "References Cited" — NOT retrieved. The examiner-cited list printed on the face of the '840 patent (USPTO "References Cited" / Google Patents "Patent Citations") was not available in the material I could retrieve — the fetched Google Patents text jumps from the Detailed Description directly to "Landscapes/Classifications," and the truncated snippets did not include the citation table. I therefore cannot truthfully provide "each patent citation" as printed on the patent. What I can provide with documentation is (a) the art actually relied on against this patent in its original prosecution and in the two IPR petitions (IPR2016-00586 and IPR2023-00437), and (b) art documented in the family's records. Where a citation field is unverified, I say so explicitly rather than reconstruct it.
• Litigation/PTAB context (confirmed by search results):
  • IPR2016-00586 — Xactware Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., petition filed Feb. 8, 2016 (corrected petition Feb. 18, 2016; second corrected petition Apr. 8, 2016). Per the Google Patents metadata in the base document: not instituted.
  • IPR2023-00437 — Roofr Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., filed Jan. 3, 2023; institution decision Aug. 1, 2023; per metadata: not instituted (merits). The petition challenged claims 1–25 and 28.
  • Older CAFC appeals 21-1048 / 21-1049 / 21-1743 and district-court cases are documented in the base patent metadata.
  • No 2026 CAFC activity specific to 8,170,840 was located (consistent with the prior summary; the Feb. 2026 Nearmap CAFC decision concerns EagleView's 8,670,961/8,078,436, not this patent).

1. Prior art documented as asserted against 8,170,840

The most relevant prior art for this patent is the art that the Examiner and IPR petitioners actually used, because the dispositive claim element across the patent is the operator-manipulable "pitch determination marker" overlaid on an aerial image (the element added during prosecution to overcome Pershing-789, and the element the IPR petitioners tried to supply with Kennedy/Pictometry).

Reference A — Pershing, "Aerial roof estimation systems and methods," US 2008/0262789 A1 (a.k.a. "Pershing-789")

Role in prosecution. Search results from the IPR2023-00437 petition analysis state directly: "Pershing-789 (Application # 2008/0262789)… was considered during prosecution… teaches a system for remote roof measurement using aerial images to determine geometry and pitch, and then generating an estimate report. Petitioner asserted that the Patent Owner previously overcame a rejection over Pershing-789 by arguing it lacked a 'pitch determination marker.'" This matches the Aug. 26, 2011 Office Action on application 12/467,244 documented in the family's non-patent-literature records ("Office Action mailed Aug. 26, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/467,244, 17 pages").

§ 102 anticipation assessment (claim-level). Pershing-789 is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) (its application was filed before the '840's effective filing date). It appears to disclose: aerial roof image display, roof planar-section geometry/pitch determination, 3D-model generation, and annotated estimate-report output — i.e., most elements of the method claim (claim 1), system claim (claim ~11), and CRM claim (claim 16). The element the Examiner/PTO accepted as not taught is the interactive pitch determination marker (protractor/envelope-style direct-manipulation control overlaid on the aerial image to indicate a section's pitch). On that record, Pershing-789 would potentially anticipate any claim (or claim scope) that does not require the overlaid pitch-marker control, but would not anticipate the claims as issued that require that marker element (independently of § 103(c)/common-ownership issues, which bear on obviousness, not § 102). Caveat: this is a reasoned inference from the documented prosecution argument, not a claim-by-claim element chart I can verify from the full claim text.

Reference B — "Kennedy," US 2009/0304227 A1

Role in proceedings. Kennedy was the primary reference in IPR2023-00437 Grounds 1–3 (obviousness over Kennedy + Bailey; Kennedy + Bailey + Pictometry; Pershing-789 + Kennedy). The PTAB did not institute, so no merits finding was made.

§ 102 anticipation assessment. If Kennedy's application was filed before the '840's effective filing date, Kennedy would be § 102(e) prior art. Per the petitioner's own mapping, Kennedy is the reference most likely to disclose the pitch-marker/overlay element that Pershing-789 lacked, and allegedly "nearly all limitations of the challenged claims" (claims 1–25, 28). Assuming the report-generation element is present in Kennedy itself (the IPR needed Bailey to supply it), Kennedy could potentially anticipate claims 1–25 and 28 on a single-reference § 102 theory — but the petition only ever pressed § 103 obviousness, and institution was denied. I could not verify Kennedy's filing date, title, or assignee, so the § 102(e) antecedent-basis question remains open.

Reference C — "Bailey," 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers technical report

§ 102 anticipation assessment. As a 1999 publication it is § 102(a)/(b) prior art. However, it is a paper manual — it does not disclose an interactive software pitch-marker overlaid on an aerial image, digital image registration, or 3D-model modification. It therefore would not anticipate any independent claim requiring those computer-implemented elements; its role was purely supplemental (supplying the "roof estimate report" limitation in an obviousness combination).

Reference D — "Pictometry," 2002 article in Law Enforcement Technology

§ 102 anticipation assessment. As a 2002 printed publication it is § 102(a)/(b) prior art, but as an article about oblique imaging it would not, standing alone, disclose the full interactive pitch-determination/model-modification method of the independent claims. Its role in the IPR was to fill the "overlay on aerial image" gap in an obviousness combination (Ground 2).

2. Other art documented in the family's records (possible front-page citations — unverified for '840 specifically)

The following references appear in Unified Patents' "Patent Art" listing for the continuation patent US 9,129,376 B2 and in sister-patent records. They are plausible front-page citations for the '840 but I cannot confirm they appear on the '840's face:

• US 7,728,833 B2 (SRI International) — "Method for generating a three-dimensional model of a roof structure," filed Aug. 18, 2004 — relevant to 3D roof modeling.
• US 6,333,749 B1 (Adobe Systems) — "Method and apparatus for image assisted modeling of three-dimensional scenes," filed Apr. 17, 1998 — relevant to photo-based 3D modeling.
• WO 2006/040775 A2 (Ofek Aerial Photography International) — "Computational solution of and building of three dimensional virtual models from aerial photographs," priority Oct. 14, 2004.
• DE 19857667 A1 (Aerowest Photogrammetrie) — "Process for creating a three-dimensional object description," priority Dec. 14, 1998 (related to the AeroDach system).
• US 2008/0221843 A1 (Shenkar et al.) — 3D modeling of large-scale urban environments.
• US 2008/0204570 A1 / 2008/0231700 A1 (Schultz et al., Pictometry) — oblique-image capture/measurement systems.
• US 8,078,436 B2 (Pershing) — the issued form of Pershing-789 (Reference A above).

Confidence flag: These are documented as considered in the EagleView family (per Unified Patents/Justia listings), not verified as printed citations of 8,170,840. Do not cite them as "citations of 8,170,840" without checking the patent's face page or PAIR.

3. Bottom line

1. The only prior art I can document as having been used against 8,170,840 in an official proceeding is: Pershing-789 (US 2008/0262789 A1) in the original prosecution, and Kennedy (US 2009/0304227 A1), Bailey (1999 USACE report), and Pictometry (2002 Law Enforcement Technology article) in the non-instituted IPR2023-00437 petition (claims 1–25, 28).
2. § 102 anticipation likelihood by reference: Pershing-789 — anticipates claim elements except the overlaid "pitch determination marker"; per the successful prosecution argument it does not anticipate the issued independent claims (1, ~11, 16). Kennedy — the strongest candidate to anticipate (claims 1–25, 28) if its § 102(e) effective date and single-reference disclosure of the report-generation step can be established; unverified on both points. Bailey and the Pictometry article — not anticipatory of the independent claims standing alone.
3. The complete examiner-cited "References Cited" list printed on the '840 patent was not retrievable in this search. To finish the per-citation table you requested, the authoritative source is the issued patent's front page or USPTO Patent Center/PAIR (application 12/467,244), which I recommend pulling next. I have deliberately not reconstructed that list from memory, because doing so would risk fabricating citation data.

Known-uncertainty summary: (a) full verbatim claim text of 8,170,840 was never retrieved, so "which claim(s)" statements are inference-based; (b) Kennedy's filing date/title/assignee and Bailey's/Pictometry's full bibliographic data are unverified; (c) the front-page citation list itself is unverified.