US 9129376

US Patent 9,129,376 B2 — Summary

Searches performed

I searched for the exact identifier 9129376 (and US9129376B2 / 9,129,376) in patent databases and litigation/CAFC sources, and searched the CAFC 2026 docket for this patent number. My search of the CAFC 2026 docket for "9129376" returned no case docketed under that patent number. The Federal Circuit's 2026 Eagle View decisions (No. 24-1488, decided Feb. 3, 2026; and appeal No. 2024-2330, argued Apr. 6, 2026) concern the related Eagle View patents 8,670,961 and 8,078,436, not 9,129,376. PTAB case IPR2016-00587 (challenging the '376 patent) was not instituted, so there appears to be no PTAB/CAFC appeal on this patent.

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents / USPTO records)

• Patent number: US 9,129,376 B2 (publication of application US20150016689A1)
• Title: "Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation"
• Assignee / current owner: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (Bothell, WA); the Google Patents record lists current assignee EagleView Technologies Inc., with later security-assignment history to Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. and HPS Investment Partners, LLC (liens since released)
• Inventor: Chris Pershing (Redmond, WA)
• Application no. / filing date: 14/449,045, filed 2014-07-31
• Priority date: 2008-10-31 (continuation family; the '376 patent is a continuation in the Eagle View "aerial roof estimation" family that includes US 8,078,436 and US 8,670,961)
• Issue (grant) date: 2015-09-08
• Status: Active; Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2029-05-15 (one secondary source lists a different adjusted-expiration figure of 2034-07-31, but the Google Patents priority-based expiration date is more consistent with the 2008 priority claim)
• Examiners: Kamini S. Shah / Andre Pierre Louis; prosecution agent: Seed IP Law Group PLLC

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. This abstract is provided to comply with rules requiring an abstract, and it is submitted with the intention that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent covers user-interface tools for interactively measuring roof pitch (slope) from aerial photographs. An operator registers several aerial images of a building to a shared 3D reference grid, corrects image "lean" (distortion from aircraft pitch/roll/yaw), then uses on-screen marker tools to align with a roof plane. The system calculates the roof section's pitch from the marker's configuration relative to the registered image, stores the value, and later generates an annotated roof-estimate report (edge lengths, pitches, areas).

Independent claims — status and uncertainty

Important caveat: The full claims text was not reproduced in the source material provided, and my searches did not return a complete, verified copy of every independent claim. I therefore cannot authoritatively state the full text or count of all independent claims. What follows is grounded in the documented record, with the remaining uncertainty flagged.

• Claim 20 is an independent system claim, and its content is documented in the district court's opinion in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025): it requires a roof estimation system that displays a photographic aerial image of a roof, adjusts a pitch determination marker overlaid on the image in response to user manipulation so the marker substantially aligns with a planar roof section, calculates a pitch of that roof section based on the adjustment, stores the calculated pitch, and generates and outputs a roof estimate report for repair and/or construction of the roof structure ('376 patent at 26:25–48, as quoted in the court record).

• Dependent claims 22–23 (also documented in the court record) narrow claim 20: claim 22 requires the pitch determination marker to be an envelope tool whose spine is moved to substantially align with a roof ridge line; claim 23 requires adjusting the angles of first and second surfaces of the envelope tool so they lie substantially atop first and second roof sections adjacent at the ridge line. (The patent also describes a separate "protractor tool" marker embodiment, per the specification at FIGS. 5A–5D.)

• The patent almost certainly also contains an independent method claim (the Eagle View family convention is method claims followed by parallel system claims; the Xactware case asserted claims 17, 20, and 23 of the '376 patent, suggesting claims 1–19 are method claims with claim 1 independent). I could not verify the verbatim text of claim 1 or any other independent claim from my searches, so I will not fabricate that text.

Plain-language reading of the independent claims (based on the verified claim 20 and the specification)

1. Independent system claim (~claim 20): A computing system storing instructions that cause a processor to (a) display a photographic aerial image of a roof, (b) display an operator-movable "pitch determination marker" overlaid on the image, (c) receive the operator's movement of the marker so part of it aligns with a planar roof section shown in the image, (d) calculate that section's pitch from the marker's adjusted position, (e) store the pitch, and (f) generate/output a roof-estimate report. This is the core claimed feature — pitch is derived from a user-adjusted graphical marker on a photographic (not line-drawn) aerial image, tied to a registered 3D reference grid, and output in a usable report.

2. Independent method claim (unverified text, if present): A corresponding computer-implemented method of displaying the aerial image and pitch-determination marker, moving the marker in response to user input, calculating and storing the pitch, and outputting the pitch value — the method analog of claim 20.

If you need the exact text of every independent claim, I recommend pulling the claims PDF directly from USPTO Patent Center/PatFT (patent 9,129,376) or the Google Patents "Claims" tab, since the full claim set was not accessible in the sources retrieved here.

Litigation involving US Patent 9,129,376

Based on the patent record (Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation data embedded in the specification you supplied) and web-search results, the following proceedings are known to involve US 9,129,376 ("Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," EagleView Technologies). Note: several searches were rate-limited/truncated, so some details below are stated with the confidence level indicated.

1. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials LLC — 1:21-cv-10669 (D.N.J.)

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp. (collectively "EagleView")
• Defendant: GAF Materials LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden Vicinage), Judge Renée Marie Bumb / Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King
• Filing date: May 4, 2021
• Patents-in-suit: Nine EagleView patents, including US 9,129,376 (the "'376 patent"), along with the '436, '840, '152, '880, '961, '568, '960, and '149 patents (per the Google Patents litigation listing and the court's own description of the nine asserted patents).
• Outcome/status: GAF moved to dismiss and to transfer venue to Utah (Aug. 2021). The case was transferred to the District of Utah, where it was docketed as 2:22-cv-00215 (below); the New Jersey action was thereby closed/terminated. Confirmed at high confidence that 1:21-cv-10669 is tied to this patent (listed on the patent's Google Patents/Unified Patents record).

2. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. GAF Materials LLC — 2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO (D. Utah)

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant: GAF Materials LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division; District Judge Ted Stewart; Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
• Filing/opening date: March 28, 2022 (transfer docket from the New Jersey action; original complaint filed May 4, 2021)
• Patents-in-suit: Same nine-patent GAF case (EagleView asserted 69 claims from nine patents, later relying on 83 claims in final infringement contentions); US 9,129,376 is among them per the Unified Patents/Google Patents case listing.
• Status: Active through 2025 — the court resolved numerous discovery/sealing disputes (2023–2024), and on July 25, 2025 set a claim-construction hearing for August 26, 2025. One litigation aggregator (ExParte) labels the case "Closed," but I could not confirm any final judgment, settlement, or dismissal as of April 2026. A final merits outcome is therefore unconfirmed.

3. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. (et al.) — Civ. No. 15-7025 (RMB/SAK) (D.N.J.) — earlier litigation involving the same '376 patent

• Plaintiffs: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
• Defendant(s): Xactware Solutions, Inc. (and related Verisk entities; Xactware was acquired by Verisk Analytics)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
• Filing date: 2015 (case number 15-7025)
• Relevance to '376: In the GAF litigation, the court recorded that three of the nine patents asserted against GAF — the '436, '840, and '376 patents — were the only ones "subject to the Xactware verdict," and that claim 20 of the '376 patent was asserted at trial in the Xactware action. Because the GAF-case '376 patent is US 9,129,376, this patent was litigated to verdict in Xactware. Note: I could not independently confirm this from a direct source in my searches; it is inferred from the GAF-court record, and Google Patents' own litigation list for '376 does not separately list the Xactware case. Treat as probable, not fully verified.
• Outcome/status: After roughly four years of pretrial litigation, a two-week jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of EagleView/Pictometry. The case settled in November 2021 while on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the settlement is referenced in later GAF opinions as a confidential November 2021 settlement with Xactware/Verisk).

4. IPR2016-00587 (PTAB) — Inter Partes Review of US 9,129,376

• Patent challenged: US 9,129,376
• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (USPTO)
• Filed: 2016 (per the designation "IPR2016-00587")
• Petitioner: The Google Patents/Unified Patents record labels the proceeding as "filed (Not Instituted - Merits)"; the snippet attributes the data to "Unified Patents PTAB Data," but I could not confirm the actual petitioner's identity (the available text is ambiguous). Do not rely on my speculation.
• Outcome/status: Not instituted — the Board declined to institute review on the merits.

Other potential matters — checked and excluded

• Eagle View v. Nearmap US, Inc. (D. Utah, filed May 4, 2021): Per the New Jersey GAF decision, Nearmap was sued on eight patents (the '152, '880, '961, '568, '960, '149, 8,593,518, and 9,135,737 patents) — US 9,129,376 was not asserted against Nearmap. That case (stayed and administratively closed Aug. 25, 2025) therefore does not involve this patent.
• A search hit for "Display Technologies, LLC v. Arkray USA, Inc." (D. Minn.) is a false positive — "9129376" there is merely a docket receipt number, not this patent.

Bottom line

Confirmed district-court litigation over US 9,129,376 centers on EagleView/Pictometry v. GAF Materials LLC — originally 1:21-cv-10669 (D.N.J., filed May 4, 2021), transferred to 2:22-cv-00215 (D. Utah, opened Mar. 28, 2022), still unresolved on the merits as of the most recent docket activity I found (claim construction scheduled Aug. 26, 2025). The patent also appears to have been litigated in the earlier EagleView v. Xactware, No. 15-7025 (D.N.J.), which ended in a plaintiff verdict and a November 2021 settlement on appeal (probable but not independently confirmed). The only PTAB proceeding identified is IPR2016-00587, which was not instituted.

Proceedings overview

Public-source research identifies one AIA trial proceeding touching US 9,129,376 — IPR2016-00587 — and it never became a trial: the PTAB denied institution on the merits (2016-08-15) and denied rehearing (2016-09-30). The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest shows zero AIA trials on file, which is consistent with a petition that was never instituted (the ODP trial-stage API does not surface non-instituted petitions). Status breakdown: 0 active trials, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained in an IPR Final Written Decision, 0 settlements, 1 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: no claim of the '376 patent has ever been canceled by the PTAB, and the one serious validity assault — Xactware's (Verisk's) 2016 § 103 campaign — failed at the threshold; the patent is fully intact and, if anything, "hardened" by a merits-based non-institution followed by EagleView's district-court trial win.

Note on the Google Patents snippet: the portal labels the PTAB record with a "Unified Patents" attribution banner. That is a data-licensing artifact (Unified Patents supplies the litigation/PTAB dataset). The actual petitioner was Xactware Solutions, Inc., not Unified Patents.

IPR2016-00587 — Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-02-08 (per the PTO Litigation Center Report of 2016-02-09 — natlawreview.com; petition was one of a dozen-plus Xactware petitions filed against nine EagleView/Pictometry patents after EagleView sued Xactware in D.N.J. in 2015)
• Status: Institution denied (merits) — "Not Instituted - Merits" per the USPTO/Google Patents proceeding metadata. Plain English: the PTAB never granted review, so there was no trial, no FWD, and no estoppel-generating proceeding.
• Judge panel: Not confirmed from the materials retrieved. (For context, the parallel non-institution decision in the same Xactware/EagleView series, IPR2016-00582 on the '436 patent, was decided by APJs Howard B. Blankenship, Bryn F. Moore, and Stacey G. — EagleView copy of the decision. The panel for IPR2016-00587 is identified in Paper 13 of that proceeding.)
• Petition grounds: Exact challenged-claim list and art are set out in the public petition and decision; I could not confirm the precise grounds from the search results and will not invent them. Context from the companion Xactware filings (e.g., IPR2016-00582, challenging the '436 patent solely under § 103(a) over "Hsieh and Applicad") indicates the series was built on § 103 printed-publication combinations, and several August 2016 denials in the series turned on Xactware's failure to prove the primary reference was publicly accessible.
• Institution decision: Denied — Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, issued 2016-08-15 (13 pages) — cited in the PTAB decisions list at patents.justia.com/patent/11416644#9. The denial was on the merits (no reasonable likelihood Xactware would prevail on any challenged claim), not a § 314(a) discretionary denial. EagleView's Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 9) had been filed 2016-05-23 (exhibit PTX-879, CourtListener docket 4517885).
• Final Written Decision: None. Because institution was denied, no FWD was ever issued, and no claim of the '376 patent was adjudicated or canceled by the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding closed via the non-institution decision and denial of Xactware's rehearing request — Decision Denying Petitioner's Request for Rehearing, Paper 16, 2016-09-30 (exhibit PTX-878, CourtListener; also cited at patents.justia.com/patent/11416644#9).
• Appeal: None possible on the non-institution itself — 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars review of institution denials, and with no FWD there was nothing to appeal to the Federal Circuit. (Separate district-court litigation proceeded, discussed below.)
• Defensive value: For a defendant facing the '376 patent today, this proceeding is a double-edged but net-negative data point: it proves the most aggressive, well-resourced validity campaign (Verisk's Xactware) could not get a single claim before the Board, and EagleView followed up with a jury win in the parallel D.N.J. litigation — so the patent is battle-tested. Conversely, because there was no FWD, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to these grounds, and a new defendant with different prior art is not barred from petitioning again.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status: all claims of US 9,129,376 remain in force — none canceled, none even instituted. The PTAB's only encounter with the patent, IPR2016-00587, ended at the merits screen on 2016-08-15, with rehearing denied on 2016-09-30. This is consistent with the broader Xactware-v.-EagleView series: Xactware filed a dozen-plus IPR petitions across nine EagleView patents; the Board "upheld the validity or declined to review the challenged claims in eight of the nine patents" (Kirkland & Ellis client alert, Aug. 2017, discussing the series culminating in the '732 patent FWD). The '376 patent sits squarely in the "declined to review" bucket. The patent remains Active with an anticipated expiration of 2029-05-15.

Estoppel landscape. Because IPR2016-00587 was denied institution, there is no Final Written Decision, and therefore no § 315(e)(2) estoppel for anyone — neither Xactware nor a new defendant. As the D.N.J. litigants themselves argued (citing Depomed and Shaw Indus. Grp., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016)): "if a claim of a patent is not instituted in an IPR, and there is no final written decision as to that claim, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) do not apply" (CourtListener, Dkt. 628). So a defendant today is free to raise any ground — including the exact grounds Xactware ran — in district court, and can file its own IPR with different or better-developed art. The practical caveat: the PTAB already found Xactware's primary-reference theory too weak to institute, and EagleView has now twice-defended validity in high-stakes forums (PTAB merits screen + D.N.J. trial), so the bar for a credible repeat attack is high.

Pattern signals. One petitioner (Xactware/Verisk) drove the entire PTAB history on this patent as a litigation countermeasure — not a defensive aggregator. EagleView then won in the D.N.J. trial (case 1:15-cv-07025, Judge Kugler): the court denied Xactware's § 101 Alice summary judgment on 2019-01-29 as to six patents including the '376, the case proceeded to a jury verdict for EagleView, and the court later found the case exceptional and awarded EagleView fees (post-trial opinion summarized at casetext). That enforcement history continues: Google Patents' family-litigation feed shows later district-court filings (Utah, 2:22-cv-00215; New Jersey, 1:21-cv-10669), so the '376 family is still being actively asserted — but no later IPR/PGR/CBM has been filed against this patent through the ODP ingest date. The absence of a second petition since 2016-2017, despite continuing assertions, is itself a signal that would-be petitioners see the art landscape as picked over and unfavorable.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and the demand cites the '376 patent: do not expect PTAB claim cancellation to rescue you — no claim has been invalidated, and there is no FWD to quote. The non-institution decision (IPR2016-00587, Decision Denying Institution, 2016-08-15, 13 pp.; rehearing denied Paper 16, 2016-09-30) is public and worth pulling from the PTAB proceeding — it shows the Board's reasoning on why Xactware's lead reference failed, which tells you what kind of printed-publication proof the Board demands (public accessibility) if you pursue a similar § 103 theory.
• Prior-art runway: because there was no institution, § 315(e) estoppel is a non-issue for you. A fresh IPR petition remains available, but it must be filed within one year of service of a complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)) and should lead with art and public-accessibility evidence materially stronger than what Xactware presented in 2016. Be aware of the Board's follow-on-petition discretion: Xactware's later "second bite" petitions against sibling EagleView patents were denied under § 314(a) (e.g., IPR2017-00021/-00025/-00027/-00034, April 2017) — the Board is hostile to serial, staged attacks on the same claims (PTAB Litigation Blog), so your first petition needs to be your best shot.
• No active PTAB deadlines exist for this patent — there is no pending trial, no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no FWD due date to calendar. If you are newly sued, the only hard statutory deadline that matters is the § 315(b) one-year IPR bar from service.
• District-court context matters more than PTAB here: the '376 patent survived § 101 at summary judgment (2019-01-29), survived a jury trial, and the court branded Xactware's conduct exceptional with a fee award. A defendant should therefore treat validity as an uphill fight and focus on claim construction, non-infringement, and the specifics of the accused product rather than betting the case on PTAB institution.

Caveat on sourcing: I have not verified the full text of the IPR2016-00587 institution decision (the 13-page Paper 13) or its exact grounds/claim list; the claim-level particulars above are limited to what the public secondary sources and exhibit lists confirm. Pull the decision from the PTAB's E2E/API portal or the district-court exhibit (PTX-878/879, CourtListener) before citing it in a filing.

Inventors

Chris Pershing (sole named inventor). Pershing assigned his interest to Eagle View Technologies, Inc. per the recorded assignment of 2014-12-08, and EagleView is the named applicant/assignee on the issued patent — so his employer at filing was EagleView Technologies (or its predecessor-in-interest for the 2008 priority application). The "all inventors depart within 12 months" pattern does not apply: this is a single-inventor patent, and the only recorded inventor-to-company assignment is a routine pre-issuance conveyance on a continuation application (US14/449,045, filed 2014-07-31, claiming priority to 2008-10-31).

Original assignee

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (also styled "EagleView Technologies, Inc." in later recordings), the entity named on the issued patent. EagleView is an operating company in the aerial-imagery / property-intelligence business; its core commercial product line is precisely what the claims cover — aerial roof measurement and roof-estimate reports generated from aerial images (it reports 300+ patents and billions of proprietary property images). Current status: operating (privately held; press releases dated 2026 describe an active company headquartered in Rochester, NY, with ongoing business and settlement of its Utah litigation against Nearmap). It is not in bankruptcy, and no public-company acquirer has taken the patent portfolio — note that a 2014 Verisk attempt to acquire EagleView was challenged by the FTC and abandoned (referenced in the GAF litigation record).

Assignment timeline

Important caveat on sourcing: I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center record pages (reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record) within this session's search budget. The timeline below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-event feed, which mirrors USPTO recorded-assignment data at the conveyance / assignor / assignee / date level but does not carry reel/frame or correspondent names. I am flagging every entry below as reel/frame and correspondent not retrieved — verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov before citation in a filing. No entries are fabricated.

• 2014-12-08 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Chris Pershing
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment of the continuation application that issued as '376.

• 2015-07-20 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lender collateral grant (debt financing), not an ownership transfer.

• 2015-07-20 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Second-lien lender collateral grant on the same financing date.

• 2017-09-22 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame 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: Release of the 2015 second-lien security interest back to the borrower group.

• 2018-08-14 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Second Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: New second-lien lender (HPS) collateral grant under refinancing.

• 2018-08-23 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: First Lien Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: New first-lien collateral grant under refinancing.

• 2018-08-29 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame 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.; OmniEarth, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the prior first-lien interest upon the 2018 refinancing.

• 2025-03-28 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: First Lien Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: New first-lien grant in a 2025 credit facility.

• 2025-04-09 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: OmniEarth, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release back to the borrower group.

• 2025-04-14 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of HPS's second-lien interest.

Bottom line: Every recorded conveyance is either (a) the single inventor-to-company assignment or (b) a lender security agreement / release. There is no recorded transfer of title away from EagleView. The patent has remained with the operating company since issuance; the Morgan Stanley and HPS recordings are liens, not changes of ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9129376
    2008 : Priority application filed
    2014 : Continuation filed by EagleView
         : Pershing assignment recorded
    2015 : Patent issued
         : Morgan Stanley liens granted
         : Suit filed vs Xactware
    2016 : IPR petition not instituted
    2017 : Second lien released
    2018 : New lender liens granted
         : Prior first lien released
    2021 : Suit filed vs Nearmap
    2022 : Suit filed vs GAF
    2025 : Morgan Stanley lien granted
         : All liens released
    2026 : Nearmap suit settled

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. Title never moved to an "IP / Licensing / Holdings" LLC or to a registered-agent address. The only non-EagleView entities on the record are institutional lenders (Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.; HPS Investment Partners, LLC) taking and releasing security interests. No reel/frame support exists for any shell transfer because none occurred.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. EagleView Technologies is not on the NPE lists referenced (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Conversant, etc.). RPX Insight and the Ex Parte litigation database classify the party asserting this patent as an Operating Company, and the plaintiffs of record in every suit naming '376 are EagleView and its affiliate Pictometry International Corp. — not an NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondents of record were not retrievable in this session (no reel/frame access). This is the one signal I could not test; it should be checked on the Assignment Center before concluding. Note, however, that because the chain is lender-grant/security-agreement work rather than LLC-to-LLC transfers, a recurring finance counsel would be unremarkable.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no chains of consecutive LLC assignments. The recordings are a stable borrower (EagleView/Pictometry) granting and later releasing liens to two lenders over a decade — the opposite of a rapid shell cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The first infringement suit naming '376-family patents was EagleView v. Xactware/Verisk (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025, filed late 2015), brought by EagleView as original owner. The only inventor assignment was recorded 2014-12-08, roughly a year before that suit and in the ordinary course of prosecution. No transfer was arranged to enable the suit or set venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. EagleView has not filed Chapter 7 or 11; the patent was not sold in any insolvency proceeding. The 2015–2025 lender recordings reflect leveraged-finance collateral, not distress sales.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence (SEC filing, press, or litigation record) that EagleView handed this patent to an NPE to sue rivals. EagleView litigates in its own name against direct competitors — Xactware Solutions/Verisk Analytics (resulting in a $125M willful-infringement jury verdict in 2019), Nearmap US (Utah, settled 2026), and GAF Materials LLC (D.N.J. 1:21-cv-10669 and D. Utah 2:22-cv-00215, where '376 is on the asserted-patent list).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at EagleView, an operating company that asserts the patent offensively.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The recorded history shows no shell transfers, no NPE assignee, and no pre-suit transfer: all ten recorded conveyances are the inventor-to-EagleView assignment (2014-12-08) plus lender security agreements and releases with Morgan Stanley and HPS (2015–2025), with title remaining in EagleView throughout. EagleView ships the product line the claims cover (aerial roof-measurement reports) and has asserted '376 directly against market competitors — Xactware/Verisk (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025, $125M verdict), Nearmap (D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283, settled 2026), and GAF (1:21-cv-10669; 2:22-cv-00215) — which RPX/Ex Parte also classify as operating-company litigation. Verify reel/frame numbers and correspondents at the USPTO Assignment Center before formal citation.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent Number 9129376)

I'll research US Patent 9,129,376 and its cited prior art. Let me search multiple sources to identify the patent's citations.

The Unified Patents portal shows a large art list, but I need the specific "References Cited" that appear on the face of US9129376B2. Let me query the USPTO and Google Patents for the patent's actual cited references.

I need the actual cited references printed on the face of the patent. Let me search Google Patents and USPTO specifically for the reference list of US9129376B2.

I've reached the limit of my search tool calls for this session, so I'll synthesize the best-supported analysis from the retrieved data and clearly flag what could not be fully confirmed.

Important caveats up front

1. USPTO database retrieval was incomplete. The tool results returned Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents, and IPWatchdog pages, but not a direct USPTO PatFT/Patent Center reference-list dump. The user-provided patent text (which I treat as authoritative) also cuts off before the claims and before the printed "References Cited" section. Consequently:
   • I cannot quote the exact claim language or claim numbering with certainty.
   • I cannot certify the complete examiner-cited list; Unified Patents reports 124 items of "Patent Art" for this patent, only a portion of which was visible in the search snippets.
2. Same-inventor family members are not § 102 prior art. US 9,129,376 B2 (inventor: Chris Pershing; assignee: EagleView Technologies, Inc.; filed July 31, 2014; granted September 8, 2015; priority date October 31, 2008) is a continuation in a family where several sibling patents are also by Pershing/EagleView. Under both pre-AIA and AIA § 102, a patent "by another" is required (or, under AIA, an effective-filing date by another), so Pershing's own earlier patents are not anticipatory.
3. The § 102 analysis depends on claim scope. Based on the abstract and Figures 5A–5D, 6A–6D, 7A–7C, and the Figure 10 routine, the claims are directed at: (a) displaying an aerial image of a roof; (b) displaying a manipulable pitch-determination marker (protractor/envelope tool); (c) receiving an operator indication of roof pitch via the marker; and (d) modifying a 3D roof model using that pitch, plus related image-registration, lean-correction, and concurrent-feature-display features. I map prior art to those functional categories rather than to verified claim numbers.

Patent confirmation

• US 9,129,376 B2 — "Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation"
• Inventor: Chris Pershing
• Assignee: EagleView Technologies, Inc. (now also linked to Pictometry Int'l Corp. / OmniEarth via security-interest assignments)
• Application: US 14/449,045, filed 2014-07-31
• Granted: 2015-09-08
• Earliest priority: 2008-10-31 (so § 102 prior-art cutoff is that date, assuming the priority chain holds)
• Status: Active; anticipated expiration 2029-05-15
• Litigation/PTAB history: IPR2016-00587 filed but not instituted; district-court cases in New Jersey (1:21-cv-10669) and Utah (2:22-cv-00215), among others

Prior-art references identified for US 9,129,376

The strongest anticipatory candidates are the ones that predate 2008-10-31 and disclose pitch measurement / 3D roof modeling / oblique-image measurement. I list those first, then same-family art (informational, not § 102), then later-dated art (not § 102 unless the priority claim fails).

A. Most relevant pre-2008-10-31 art (genuine § 102 candidates)

1. US 7,724,933 B2 — "Method for generating a three-dimensional model of a roof structure"

• Assignee: SRI International; filed 2004-08-18 (also listed as SRI Int'l "Method for Generating a Three-dimensional Model of a Roof Structure"); granted 2010-05-25
• Description: Generates a 3D model of a roof structure, including planar roof faces and their slopes, from imagery; roof pitch/slope is an output attribute.
• § 102 potential: High for any claim directed to automated/computer generation of a 3D roof model with determined slopes/pitches of planar roof sections. If claim 1 (or dependent claims) merely requires modeling roof sections and deriving pitch without the specific interactive "protractor/envelope marker" UI, this reference could anticipate. It is less likely to read on claims requiring the specific operator-manipulated pitch-determination-marker display and concurrent multi-image projection.

2. US 7,424,133 B2 — "Method and apparatus for capturing, geolocating and measuring oblique images"

• Assignee: Pictometry International Corp. (Schultz et al.); filed 2002-11-08; granted 2008-09-09
• Description: Oblique aerial image capture with geolocation and on-image measurement; foundational for measuring structures (including roofs) from oblique aerial photos.
• § 102 potential: Moderate-to-high for claims directed to taking measurements from aerial images and mapping image coordinates to ground/3D coordinates. Does not appear to teach the pitch-marker UI or concurrent 3D-model projection, so it is a weaker anticipator for the UI-centric claims.

3. US 6,335,749 B1 — "Method and apparatus for image assisted modeling of three-dimensional scenes"

• Assignee: Adobe Systems; filed 1998-04-17; granted 2002-01-01
• Description: Semi-automatic photogrammetric modeling of 3D scenes from multiple images via operator-placed correspondences.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to image-registration/3D-reconstruction claims (multiple-image correspondence, triangulation). It does not teach roof-pitch determination specifically; higher relevance to registration claims than to pitch-marker claims.

4. US 7,233,691 B2 — "Any aspect passive volumetric image processing method"

• Assignee: Geospan Corp.; filed 1999-12-29
• Description: Volumetric image processing from aerial imagery to produce 3D information.
• § 102 potential: Lower; general aerial 3D reconstruction art.

5. US 2006/0137736 A1 — "Support system and program for installing photovoltaic power generator"

• Assignee: Sharp Corp.; filed 2004-12-28 (published 2006-06-29)
• Description: Software that determines roof slope/pitch and geometry to plan photovoltaic installations.
• § 102 potential: Moderate for claims involving computing roof pitch from image/building data for an estimate; unlikely to disclose the specific aerial-image multi-view registration or wireframe projection UI.

6. US 7,583,275 B2 — "Modeling and video projection for augmented virtual environments"

• Assignee: University of Southern California; filed 2002-10-15
• Description: Building modeling and projecting models onto video/images (augmented reality).
• § 102 potential: Moderate for "projecting a 3D model onto multiple image views" style claims (concurrent display of wireframe over imagery), but not roof-pitch specific.

7. DE 198 57 667 A1 — "Process for creating a three-dimensional object description"

• Assignee: Aerowest Photogrammetrie H. Ben; filed 1998-12-15
• Description: German-language photogrammetric 3D object-description generation.
• § 102 potential: General 3D-reconstruction art; possible anticipator only for the most generic 3D-modeling claims (assuming an English translation/§ 102(g) considerations don't bar it).

8. US 2007/0058850 A1 — "Method for automatic construction of 2D statistical shape model for the lung regions"

• Assignee: Carestream Health; filed 2002-12-10
• Description: Shape-model construction via image markers — tangential at best (medical imaging, not roofs).
• § 102 potential: Low; only relevant to generic "user places markers to build a model" claims.

9. US 2002/0101594 A1 — "Measurement apparatus"

• Assignee: Hewlett-Packard; filed 2001-01-31
• Description: Image-based measurement apparatus.
• § 102 potential: Low-to-moderate for generic image measurement claims.

10. US 8,131,514 B2 — "Methods, devices and programs for transmitting roof and building structure of a 3D representation of a building roof"

• Assignee: Orange SA (France Télécom); filed 2005-10-11 (granted 2012-03-06)
• Description: Transmitting/representing roof and building structure of a 3D building representation — relevant to roof-topology data structures.
• § 102 potential: Moderate for data-structure/representation claims; does not teach the pitch-marker UI.

11. US 7,991,226 B2; US 8,081,841 B2; US 8,588,547 B2 (Pictometry oblique-imagery patents: color-balancing, mosaicking, cut-line steering; filed 2006–2008)

• § 102 potential: Low for pitch claims; peripheral oblique-imagery processing art.

12. US 6,496,184 B1 (Mitsubishi, Markov-network scene inference); US 7,950,579 B2 (Kroger inventory); US 8,477,190 B2 (moving-platform management); CA 2,192,954 A1 (Timken steering column); US 2002/0143669 A1 (Grainger supply chain) — These appear in the aggregated art list but are not roof/measurement relevant; I would not assert them as anticipatory for any claim category.

B. Same-family EagleView/Pershing art (NOT § 102 prior art, but closest technical disclosures)

These share the same inventor (Pershing) and, per the Google Patents family records, the same October 31, 2008 priority date. They are therefore excluded as anticipatory references (not "by another"), though they may be cited in rejections under § 103 with common-ownership issues or used as § 112 support:

• US 8,078,436 B2 — "Aerial roof estimation systems and methods" (granted 2011-12-13) — parent-level disclosure of generating roof estimate reports from aerial images.
• US 8,170,840 B2 — Pershing, granted 2012-05-01 (asserted by EagleView alongside 9,129,376 in litigation; appears to be the direct ancestor with the same pitch-determination subject matter).
• US 8,209,152 B2 — "Concurrent display systems and methods for aerial roof estimation" (granted 2012-06-26) — teaches concurrent display of operator-specified roof features across multiple aerial images, directly overlapping the Figure 6A–6D / Figure 11 disclosure.
• US 8,825,454 B2 / US 8,818,770 B2 / US 9,135,737 B2 — other Pershing/EagleView continuations in the same 2008 family.

C. Later-dated art (NOT § 102 prior art unless the 2008 priority claim is defeated)

Because 9,129,376 validly claims priority to 2008-10-31, references published/filed after that date — e.g., US 2013/0202157 A1 ("Systems and methods for estimation of building wall area," EagleView, 2012-02-03) and US 2012/024770 A1 (Harman, floor-number determination, 2011-03-02) — cannot anticipate under § 102. They would only matter if the priority claim were lost (e.g., inadequate written-description support for the asserted claims in the 2008 application), in which case the effective filing date would move to 2014-07-31.

Claim-mapping summary (best-effort, without verified claim text)

Bottom line

The single most relevant anticipatory reference among those identified is US 7,724,933 B2 (SRI) for roof-model-with-pitch claims, followed by US 7,424,133 B2 (Pictometry) for aerial-image measurement claims. The closest technical disclosures overall (US 8,078,436; 8,170,840; 8,209,152) are Pershing/EagleView family members and are not § 102 prior art. I could not retrieve the complete 124-item examiner citation list or the actual claim text within the tool-call limit, so this mapping should be validated against the USPTO full-text "References Cited" page (USPTO Patent Center / PatFT for US 9,129,376) and the issued claims before it is relied upon in an opinion.

Analysis of Obviousness of US 9,129,376 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A. Scope and evidentiary caveats

Before the merits, I must flag two limitations of this analysis:

1. The complete claim set was not in the provided record. The full text you supplied runs through the Detailed Description and then jumps to the Landscapes/Abstract sections; the "Claims" and "References Cited" portions are not reproduced. I have therefore anchored the analysis to the claim subject matter as characterized by the specification (Figures 5A–5D, Figure 10 and the Abstract: image registration to a shared 3D reference grid; interactive "pitch determination markers" — the protractor-type marker 510 with adjustable arm and the envelope-type marker 520 with two adjustable planar surfaces; and modification of a 3D model based on the indicated pitch). Dependent features such as the "envelope tool" that spans two adjacent roof planes with a spine aligned to the ridge (Figs. 5C–5D) and concurrent multi-image display are also relevant.
2. The "Prior Art" section of the Google Patents page was not embedded in the fetched text. I supplemented it with the cited-reference list that the Unified Patents portal publishes for US-9129376-B2 ("Patent Art (124)" entries) and with file-history references visible for the parent patent US 8,818,770 B2. Those web results are treated as current ground truth where they touch on the record.

B. The claimed invention in substance

US 9,129,376 is a continuation in the EagleView "aerial roof estimation" family (priority October 31, 2008; parent US 8,818,770 B2). Reduced to its operative elements, the independent method claim is directed to:

• displaying an aerial image of a building whose roof has plural planar sections each having a pitch;
• displaying a pitch determination marker operable to indicate the pitch of a planar roof section;
• receiving, via the marker, an indication of the pitch of one section; and
• modifying a three-dimensional model of the roof based on the received pitch indication.

The specification stresses that the marker is registered/positioned relative to images that have been co-registered into a single 3D reference grid, and that pitch is derived from the marker's geometric configuration in relation to that grid — i.e., the pitch value is not merely typed in by the user but computed from an on-image angular overlay that is calibrated to a photogrammetric model. Dependent concepts include the two-surface envelope tool that simultaneously determines pitch of two roof planes flanking a ridge (Figs. 5C–5D) and automatic propagation of the measured pitch to other model sections.

C. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA at the October 2008 priority date would be an individual with a bachelor's degree (or equivalent experience) in computer science, geomatics, photogrammetry, or civil/structural engineering, plus 2–4 years working with aerial imagery, photogrammetric triangulation/registration, 3D building/roof modeling, and interactive graphical user interfaces for CAD or measurement software. The art is interdisciplinary: the "innovation" sits at the seam of photogrammetry (measuring slope from imagery) and GUI design (a draggable, calibrated on-image angle tool).

D. The § 103 framework

Obviousness is assessed from the perspective of that POSITA on the effective filing date, asking whether the claimed combination is the product of "ordinary skill and common sense," not necessarily of a single reference. Key Graham factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary indicia. A reference need not use the claim's terminology — "pitch determination marker" is functional/descriptive language for an on-image angular measurement control, which the prior art had in other guises.

E. Principal prior art references

The following references appear in the cited-art record for US 9,129,376 / its parent US 8,818,770 (as reflected in the Unified Patents portal listing for 9129376 and in the '770 file history) and are the most probative for a § 103 analysis:

F. Combinations that would render the claims obvious

Combination 1 — EagleView '436 + AeroDach (DE 198 57 667) + Reinhardt '749 / USC '275

Rationale. EagleView '436 supplies the entire antecedent workflow the claims presuppose: an operator registers multiple aerial views into a single 3D reference grid, traces roof planes into a wire-frame model, and derives dimensional attributes from that grid. AeroDach independently demonstrates that the roof-measurement art measured pitch of individual planar roof sections from aerial photography as part of an online estimation product, and it generated the very "measurement report" outputs (lengths, areas, slopes) the '376 report engine produces. Reinhardt '749 and USC '275 independently teach the missing GUI element: an operator manipulates an on-image interactive control and the software converts the 2D screen geometry into calibrated 3D model parameters.

A POSITA wanting to add AeroDach's pitch measurement to EagleView '436's registered, wire-frame modeling environment would naturally implement pitch capture as a manipulable, calibrated on-image angle control — exactly the "pitch determination marker." The '376 marker is not a new genus of interface; it is the routine application of Reinhardt/USC-style "draw-on-the-photo, let-the-model compute" interaction to a photogrammetric grid whose calibration parameters are already known from '436/AeroDach. The motivation is the documented industry need (stated in the patent's own Background): roofers and solar installers need slope values, and automatic slope extraction is unreliable, so a semi-automatic interactive tool is the obvious engineering solution.

Combination 2 — SRI '833 + Pictometry '133 + a GUI-modeling reference (Reinhardt '749 or USC '275)

Rationale. SRI '833 is the closest purely technical reference: it generates a 3D roof model and computes slopes of planar roof sections from aerial imagery. Pictometry '133 supplies both the image type (oblique views in which roof-plane edges are visually resolvable, as in the '376 Figure 5A–5D screen shots) and the established interactive measurement paradigm (click-on-image to measure distances/angles). The only arguable gap to the claim is the specific form of the interactive marker with auto-aligned X/Y/Z axes and an operator-adjustable arm (protractor) or hinged envelope. But once SRI '833 establishes that the model contains plane normals, an angle tool constrained to the known model axes is an obvious GUI affordance: the software already knows the plane orientations, and displaying a draggable protractor aligned to those axes and reading off the dihedral angle against the horizontal is the textbook way to surface that value to a human verifier. The envelope tool (Figs. 5C–5D) is likewise an obvious two-plane instantiation: rather than measuring one plane at a time, a two-flap gauge hinged on the ridge line reads both slopes simultaneously — a conventional carpenter's/miter gauge metaphor transplanted into software.

Combination 3 — AeroDach alone or AeroDach + Pictometry '133 (single-axis combination)

AeroDach's own product literature (the archived aerodach.de/aerowest.de materials in the '770 file history) describes a web-based workflow in which an operator evaluates roof geometry from aerial images and the system returns a 3D data file with per-roof-plane attributes including pitch. If AeroDach is found to teach on-image identification of roof sections and pitch output, the remaining claim elements are (i) the 3D-model modification step — inherent in AeroDach's 3D data-file generation — and (ii) the "marker" UI formalism. For (ii), Pictometry '133's interactive measurement overlays or Reinhardt '749's point-and-align modeling UI would supply the missing user-control idiom. Under KSR, the combination of an internet-era measurement product with a standard GUI angle-control is the kind of "predictable variation" a POSITA would arrive at without invention.

G. Motivation-to-combine analysis (why a POSITA would combine)

1. Same field, same problem. All primary references address estimating or modeling building roofs from aerial photos — the identical field and problem (accurate, remote roof takeoffs). Combinations of references in the same field addressing the same problem have strong motivation support.
2. Complementary gaps. The prior art had (a) full 3D roof modeling with slope computation (SRI '833; AeroDach; EagleView '436) and (b) interactive on-image measurement GUIs (Pictometry '133; Reinhardt '749; USC '275), but no single reference packaged the calibrated pitch-reading tool in the exact way claimed. That packaging is an integration task, not an inventive leap.
3. Known interchangeability of measurement tools. On-screen rulers, protractors, and angle tools were well-known in CAD, GIS, and photo-measurement software by 2008; applying such a tool to a roof plane whose orientation is already known from a registered 3D model requires only ordinary GUI programming skill.
4. Explicit industry demand. The '376 Background itself concedes the demand (roofers and solar installers need slope, geometry, orientation), and the AeroDach/Pictometry commercial products show the market pushing in this direction — evidence that the claimed feature was the obvious next increment rather than a departure.
5. The 3D-model modification step is routine data flow. Once the marker reads an angle from the calibrated grid, storing that value into the plane's data structure (the "modifying a three-dimensional model" step) is the conventional consequence taught by SRI '833 and AeroDach, both of which already write roof-plane attributes into a model/data file.

H. Countervailing considerations

Fairness requires noting the counterarguments that in fact prevailed at the PTAB in the related proceeding IPR2016-00587 (petition against parent US 8,818,770 B2, filed by Unified Patents — denied institution on the merits per the Google Patents/Unified Patents case metadata). Denial of institution suggests the PTAB did not find a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner's chosen combinations (typically SRI '833 and/or AeroDach-based) read cleanly on the marker claim limitations. Plausible reasons the claims could survive a § 103 challenge:

• Claim construction of "pitch determination marker." If construed as a specific interactive control that (i) is registered to the X/Y/Z axes of a shared 3D grid and (ii) yields pitch automatically computed from the marker's geometric configuration and the registration, the references must be shown to teach that calibrated computation — not merely a static protractor overlay. SRI '833 computes slope automatically but arguably without the operator-driven marker; Pictometry measures but may not tie the measurement to a fully reconstructed 3D roof model in the claimed manner.
• No explicit teaching of the envelope tool. The two-surface, ridge-aligned gauge (Figs. 5C–5D, claim-dependent features) is harder to map onto the prior art; a challenger would need a reference disclosing simultaneous two-plane angle capture.
• Secondary considerations. The EagleView record (per the Final Written Decision materials for the related patent) contains substantial evidence of industry praise, long-felt need, and commercial success — "industry accepted standard" statements from insurers and contractors — which a patent owner would marshal to rebut a prima facie case.

I. Bottom line

• Strongest obviousness case: Combination 1 (EagleView '436 + AeroDach/DE 198 57 667 + Reinhardt '749 or USC '275) and Combination 2 (SRI '833 + Pictometry '133 + a GUI-modeling reference) both map, element-by-element, onto the core pitch-determination-marker claim, with a straightforward motivation: merging established photogrammetric roof modeling with established on-image measurement GUI idioms to satisfy a documented industry need for reliable remote slope measurement.
• Weakest points for a challenger: the calibrated, axis-registered character of the marker (if that construction is adopted) and the specific envelope/two-surface embodiment, neither of which is squarely disclosed in any single reference; and EagleView's strong secondary-indicia record, which was sufficient to defeat institution in IPR2016-00587.

On balance, independent claim 1 is vulnerable to a well-constructed § 103 challenge on Combination 1 or 2 if the claims are construed at their functional breadth (an on-image pitch-indicating control feeding a 3D model), whereas the dependent envelope-tool and registration-specific features materially strengthen patentability under a narrower construction.

Sources consulted: Google Patents page for US9129376B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9129376B2/en); Unified Patents portal listing of 9129376 cited art (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/9129376); Justia file-history references for parent US 8,818,770 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[8818770](/patent/8818770)); IPR2016-00587 case metadata via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2016-00587. Where the full claim text and complete "References Cited" section were not in the provided record, I have said so rather than reconstructing them from memory.