US 9514568B2

Concise Patent Summary — US 9514568B2

Important scope note on searches performed: I searched for the literal identifier 9514568B2 (USPTO/Google Patents sources, litigation portals, and Federal Circuit 2026 docket coverage). The February 3, 2026 Federal Circuit decision in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (Nos. 24-1488, 24-1549) does not involve 9514568B2 itself — it affirmed PTAB IPR obviousness findings against the related, same-specification family patents 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 (IPR2022-01009; IPR2022-01090). I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry specific to 9514568B2. Do not conflate the two; '961 is the immediate parent in 9514568's continuation chain, but the CAFC decision's holdings are not directly on 9514568B2 claims.

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents and the USPTO PDF of the patent)

• Title: Aerial roof estimation systems and methods
• Patent/application: US 9,514,568 B2 / U.S. Appl. No. 14/195,543
• Inventors: Chris Pershing (Redmond, WA); David P. Carlson (Arlington, TX)
• Assignee (original/current): Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (application listed Bothell, WA; later Bellevue, WA)
• Filing date: March 3, 2014 (as a continuation)
• Issue date: December 6, 2016
• Priority lineage: Continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 13/287,954 (issued as 8,670,961), which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 12/148,439 (issued as 8,145,578); family priority date asserted as April 17, 2007. Status on Google Patents: Active, with adjusted expiration indicated as February 24, 2029.
• Claims/figures: 18 claims; 13 drawing sheets.
• Source URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9514568/en ; PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/67/db/c0/8580575d941639/US9514568.pdf

Abstract

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

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent describes a system for remotely estimating roof repair/replacement/installation work. A customer provides an address; the system geocodes it, pulls aerial (or street-level/oblique) images from a location-linked image database, and analyzes them (manually and/or semi-automatically) to determine roof geometry — planar section boundaries, ridge/valley lines, slopes/pitch (commonly expressed as inches of rise per 12 inches of run), areas, and linear dimensions. A generated report (FIGS. 5A–5F) includes annotated line-drawing plan views showing dimensions, per-section pitch, and per-section square footage. The specification's two method embodiments are the FIG. 8 routine (correlate two different aerial views → generate a 3D roof model → prepare annotated top-down report views) and the FIG. 9 "economy" routine (single substantially top-down image → preliminary 2D model refined with user-supplied pitch data → annotated report).

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

I do not have authoritative, verbatim text of the independent claims of 9514568B2 from the materials available to me: the full-text copy provided was truncated before the claims section, and neither the USPTO PDF text snippet nor the Google Patents snippet in my searches reproduced the claims verbatim. Rather than paraphrase riskily or fabricate exact limitations, I will characterize them as follows and flag the confidence level:

• The patent has 18 claims (per the USPTO PDF cover page: "18 Claims"). Based on the same-specification family patents and the FIG. 8/FIG. 9 embodiments, the independent claims are generally directed to a computer-implemented method / roof estimation system / computer-readable medium for generating a roof estimate report that (a) receives or displays a first and a second aerial image of a building roof providing different views; (b) correlates the images (e.g., registering corresponding points/features, with or without user input, using non-stereoscopic images); (c) generates a three-dimensional model of the roof comprising a plurality of planar roof sections with associated slope, area, and edge lengths; and (d) prepares/transmits a roof estimate report with annotated top-down views carrying numerical values for slope, area, and/or edge lengths of at least some roof sections.
• Dependent claims likely add limitations such as feature/pitch markers, ridge/valley identification, point registration to a reference grid, label sizing/orientation, and cost-estimate inclusion.

Confidence assessment: Bibliographic facts and the abstract above are high-confidence (confirmed by multiple independent sources including the USPTO-format PDF). The independent-claim description is medium-confidence inference from the family specification and figures, not verified claim text. If you need claim-exact language, I recommend pulling the claims column from the USPTO PDF at the link above or the USPTO Patent Center record (the "Global Dossier"/"USPTO" links on the Google Patents page) — that is the authoritative source I could not fully retrieve within the search limits.

Related litigation context (for completeness)

Unified Patents/Google Patents list litigation against the family: Utah District Court cases 2:22-cv-00215 and 2:21-cv-00283 and New Jersey District Court case 1:21-cv-10669 (e.g., EagleView Techs. v. Xactware Solutions in NJD involved family patents '436, '840, '737, etc., and EagleView v. Nearmap, D. Utah). The Feb. 3, 2026 CAFC affirmance (24-1488/24-1549, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc.) concerned claims of the '961 and '436 family patents — not 9514568B2.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 9,514,568 B2 (US9514568B2)

Based on searches of Unified Patents litigation data (as reflected on the Google Patents record for US9514568B2), IPWatchdog's patent-filing roundups, PACER-derived docket sources (Justia, CourtListener, Trellis, Ex Parte), and Patsnap case summaries, I have identified two substantive district court actions in which US9514568B2 was asserted as one of multiple patents-in-suit. Both are EagleView family cases. Details below, with confidence caveats on the most recent docket statuses.

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

Source: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/ ; https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2021cv00283/[125462](/patent/125462)/ ; https://trellis.law/opinion/district/eagle-view-technologies-v-nearmap-us/383369342

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

Sources: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/12/ptab-filings-roundup-microsoft-battles-daedalus-blue-intel-gears-up-first-file-fight-electric-blanket-boogaloo/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/utah/utdce/2:2022cv00215/[131262](/patent/131262) ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2022cv00215/[131262/267](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=131262-0267)/ ; https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/utd/2:22-cv-00215/eagle-view-tech-v-gaf-materials-llc

Reconciliation note (avoid double-counting)

The Google Patents page for US9514568B2 lists three litigation records — Utah 2:22-cv-00215, Utah 2:21-cv-00283, and New Jersey 1:21-cv-10669. The NJ case (1:21-cv-10669) and the Utah case (2:22-cv-00215) are the same GAF action, transferred mid-case; they are not two separate suits. The docket for 2:22-cv-00215 expressly reflects filings "Transferred from New Jersey on 3/28/2022." So the two distinct litigations are Nearmap (D. Utah) and GAF (D.N.J. → D. Utah).

Cases I checked and excluded (important for accuracy)

• Eagle View v. Xactware Solutions / Verisk Analytics (D.N.J.): Although docket filings in the Nearmap case reference an "Xactware litigation" in which EagleView asserted "three of the same patents" that were later dropped, I found no evidence that US9514568B2 was among them, and Google Patents does not list the Xactware case as litigation for this patent. Do not assume 9514568B2 was asserted there.
• Federal Circuit Nos. 24-1488 / 24-1549, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (decision Feb. 3, 2026): This appeal concerned PTAB IPR findings against the related family patents US8670961B2 and US8078436B2 (IPR2022-01009; IPR2022-01090). It does not involve US9514568B2 claims. However, that CAFC decision is relevant context because the August 2025 stay in the Nearmap district-court case (which does include 9514568B2) was entered "pending PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings," so the stay's eventual lift and the future of the 9514568B2 claims in that case may depend on those related-family appeals.

Confidence statement

• High confidence: Existence, parties, case numbers, courts, and filing dates for the Nearmap action (2:21-cv-00283) and the GAF action (1:21-cv-10669 → 2:22-cv-00215), and that 9514568B2 was among the asserted patents in both (Nearmap: confirmed by Patsnap's case summary; GAF: confirmed by IPWatchdog's case/patent listing).
• Medium confidence: The current statuses. The Nearmap case was stayed/administratively closed on August 25, 2025 — I found no post-February 2026 docket update showing that the stay has been lifted or the case dismissed. The GAF case is listed as "Closed" by a docket tracker, and 2024 filings reference a settlement agreement, strongly suggesting settlement, but I did not retrieve the terminating document itself.
• No PTAB IPR directed at 9514568B2 itself was identified in these searches, and no CAFC appeal specifically addressing 9514568B2 was identified. If you need definitive, real-time docket verification (e.g., whether the Nearmap stay has been lifted since the February 2026 CAFC decision), PACER (case 2:21-cv-00283, D. Utah) or the Unified Patents litigation portal would be the authoritative next check.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 9514568B2. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal block in the prompt returns no IPR/PGR/CBM for this patent, and my web searches surfaced no PTAB petition naming 9,514,568 as the challenged patent — every IPR I found targets a same-specification family patent (8,670,961; 8,078,436; 9,135,737; etc.), not the '568 patent itself. Bottom-line defensive posture: the '568 patent has never been through an AIA trial, so none of its 18 claims has been canceled or even institution-challenged at the PTAB — it is untested, not "hardened." A defendant cannot point to any FWD that kills '568 claims, but also faces no estoppel from prior proceedings and remains free (subject to the § 315(b) one-year clock from service) to mount a fresh challenge using the same art that felled the family patents.

There are therefore no per-proceeding entries with judge panels, grounds, institution decisions, FWDs, settlements, or appeals to report against 9514568B2 itself. What follows states that plainly, flags the closely-related family IPRs so you don't conflate them with '568, and maps the defensive landscape.

No proceedings directly against US 9514568B2

• Type: N/A — none filed (no IPR, PGR, or CBM)
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings on file (verbatim from the structured USPTO ODP block). Plain-English gloss: the PTAB has never been asked to review any claim of the '568 patent.
• Judge panel / Petition grounds / Institution decision / Final Written Decision / Settlement / Appeal: None exist for this patent. No FWD has addressed any claim of 9,514,568, and I will not imply otherwise.
• Defensive value: Zero PTAB claims are canceled. Any infringement theory built on '568 claims cannot be dismissed on the basis of a PTAB cancellation. Conversely, no petitioner is estopped against '568 by prior family IPRs.

Closest context (not on this patent — do not conflate): The Feb. 3, 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nos. 24-1488, 24-1549) upheld PTAB obviousness findings in IPR2022-01009 ('961 patent, FWD 2023-12-14) and IPR2022-01090 ('436 patent, FWD 2024-01-09) — both siblings of '568 sharing its specification and April 17, 2007 priority date. Those IPRs challenged and canceled claims of the '961 and '436 patents only; they did not challenge and did not cancel any claim of 9,514,568. Nearmap's April 2022 announcement likewise described IPRs against "three patents subject to the current litigation" — the '568 patent (asserted in D. Utah case 2:21-cv-00283, stayed 2025-08-25 pending PTO/Fed. Cir. proceedings) has not been the subject of any identified Nearmap or GAF IPR petition.

Strategic summary

Claim status of 9514568B2: all 18 claims are UNTESTED (not canceled, not sustained). No PTAB tribunal has ever instituted review of the '568 patent, issued a FWD on it, or upheld its claims. For the avoidance of doubt: the cancellations in IPR2022-01009 (claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21–22, 24–25, 27, 29 of '961) and IPR2022-01090 (claims 1–42 and 46–66 of '436) are claims of other patents, and IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) attaches only to the patent challenged in each proceeding. A party that was a petitioner in those family IPRs is estopped from re-raising against those patents the grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised — but no estoppel runs against a later challenge to '568's own claims. The practical silver lining: the PTAB (and CAFC on appeal) already held, on the shared specification, that the family's "calculate/determine a pitch" limitations carry no accuracy requirement and are met by prior-art systems that inherently determine pitch during 3D roof modeling (e.g., Littleworth). That reasoning is highly persuasive (though not formally binding) in any future IPR or § 103 defense against structurally similar '568 claims.

Estoppel / available grounds. For a defendant sued today on '568: (1) if you were not a petitioner in the family IPRs, no § 315(e)(2) bar applies and you may raise any § 102/§ 103 ground; (2) the killer combination from the family cases — e.g., Littleworth-based obviousness for pitch determination, and the "printed matter" treatment of report-content limitations adopted in IPR2016-00592 and carried into IPR2022-00734 — is all still available against '568; (3) the § 315(b) bar is the real deadline: an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of the complaint asserting '568 against you. For Nearmap (served May 2021), that window closed in May 2022 — which may partly explain why no Nearmap IPR on '568 exists despite the patent being in suit. A newly-sued defendant still has its full one-year window.

Pattern signals. Eagle View/Pictometry is a serial, aggressive enforcer: the family has been litigated in D.N.J. (EagleView v. Xactware/Verisk, 1:15-cv-07025 — $125M jury verdict, permanent injunction, PTAB challenges defeated), D.N.J./D. Utah (EagleView v. GAF, 1:21-cv-10669, asserting '568 among ten patents), and D. Utah (EagleView v. Nearmap, 2:21-cv-00283, asserting '568 among eight patents, stayed 2025-08-25). Nearmap is a repeat IPR petitioner against the family (IPR2022-00734, -01009, -01090, plus institution denials in 2024 on '648 and '657 patents), and Xactware previously filed a dozen-plus petitions. The absence of any IPR on '568 is therefore conspicuous — most plausibly explained by the § 315(b) clock and by challengers targeting the earlier-issued parents whose claims were more exposed, not by any PTAB endorsement of '568's claims.

Recommended next steps

• Verify before relying: Pull the USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Center record for 9,514,568 yourself to confirm the ODP "no proceedings" state, and obtain the exact '568 claims (the continuation claims differ from '961/'436; do not assume they mirror the canceled claims). If your demand letter cites '568 claims that track the canceled '961 claims (e.g., pitch-determination limitations), map them claim-by-claim against IPR2022-01009's FWD (2023 WL 8651434) and the CAFC's Feb. 3, 2026 affirmance — the PTAB's obviousness analysis of the shared specification is your strongest template.
• If you are newly sued on '568: file any IPR within one year of service (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)) — do not wait for claim construction. Build the petition on the family-winning art (Littleworth and the combination grounds from IPR2022-01009/-01090), and expect Eagle View to argue the '568 claims differ; be ready to show they recite the same "calculate/determine a pitch" and report-annotation concepts the Board already held unpatentable and the CAFC affirmed.
• If your exposure is in the stayed Utah action (2:21-cv-00283): the stay is keyed to completion of the PTO/Fed. Cir. proceedings on the family patents (the last CAFC affirmance issued 2026-02-03). The parties must notify the court within five days of those proceedings' completion — expect the stay to lift and '568 to remain in play, since no PTAB proceeding has touched it.
• No active PTAB milestones exist for '568 itself (no institution decision, oral hearing, or FWD deadlines to calendar). Absence of PTAB activity is not a validity signal here — it reflects timing and petitioner strategy, so treat '568 claims as fully enforceable until a tribunal says otherwise.

Confidence note: the "zero proceedings" finding is high-confidence for the ODP-sourced data and my searches; I found no PTAB docket, FWD, or CAFC appeal naming 9514568B2. All family-IPR statements above are drawn from public PTAB/CAFC records surfaced in search. If you locate a petition against '568 that post-dates the ODP ingest or that my searches missed, flag it and I will re-run the claim-level analysis.

Inventors

Pattern note: No unusual departure pattern. Both inventors assigned to the same operating company that filed the application, and both continued inventing for that company on the same roof-estimation family. There is no "all inventors left within 12 months before a portfolio fire-sale" signal. (Employer inference is from the assignment record plus later family filings, not from a personnel database; residences are from the patent face.)

Original assignee

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (also styled "EagleView Technologies, Inc."; application address Bothell, WA; current address Bellevue, WA).

• Product embodiment: Yes — EagleView's commercial roof-measurement reports (the "EagleView report" / aerial roof estimation product line sold to roofers, insurers, and solar installers) are the direct commercial embodiment of the claimed annotated roof-estimate-report generation. The company operates imagery capture (including the Pictometry oblique-imagery business) and property-analytics businesses.
• Line of business: Aerial imagery, roof measurement and property-data analytics (roofing, insurance, solar, government).
• Current status: Operating. Privately held, financed through 2015 and 2018 first-lien/second-lien credit facilities (Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. as first-lien agent; HPS Investment Partners, LLC as second-lien lender), with the 2015 first- and second-lien security interests released in 2017/2018 and a new 2025 first-lien facility recorded with releases of the prior Morgan Stanley and HPS liens in April 2025. No bankruptcy, no dissolution.

Assignment timeline

Important sourcing caveat (read first): I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names within my search limits — the Assignment Center is a JavaScript application and my searches did not surface the reel/frame metadata for this patent. Rather than fabricate reel/frame or correspondent entries, the timeline below lists every conveyance event shown on this patent's USPTO-derived legal-events record (as reproduced on the Google Patents record of US9514568B2, which is the authoritative copy supplied with this analysis). Dates below are the event dates as shown on that record (USPTO assignment-DB recordation dates); execution dates and reel/frame numbers must be verified at the Assignment Center by patent-number quick lookup: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search (enter patent 9514568).

• 2014-12-09 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Chris Pershing; David P. Carlson
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Initial vesting of title from the named inventors to the original assignee (recorded against the then-pending continuation application 14/195,543).

• 2015-07-20 — Reel/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: Grant of a first-lien security interest in the patent portfolio as collateral for the 2015 leveraged financing of the EagleView/Pictometry group — a lien, not a transfer of title.

• 2015-07-20 — Reel/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: Same-day second-lien security agreement in the same 2015 financing — again a lien.

• 2016-12-06 — Patent issued as US9514568B2 (not an assignment).

• 2017-09-22 — Reel/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 (second-lien refinancing/retirement).

• 2018-08-14 — Reel/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 financing with HPS as lender — a lien, not title transfer.

• 2018-08-23 — Reel/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: Restated/replacement first-lien financing with Morgan Stanley as collateral agent — a lien.

• 2018-08-29 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: OmniEarth, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the prior 2015 first-lien security interest upon the 2018 refinancing.

• 2025-03-28 — Reel/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 2025 first-lien facility — a lien.

• 2025-04-09 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of First Lien Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Pictometry International Corp.; OmniEarth, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the 2018 first-lien interest in connection with the 2025 refinancing.

• 2025-04-14 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS Investment Partners, LLC
  • Assignee: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the 2018 HPS second-lien interest — the second lien was paid off and released.

Net chain of title: Inventors → Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (2014); EagleView remains the assignee of record of the patent itself throughout. Every later instrument is a lender security agreement or a release of one — none transfers ownership of the patent away from Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9514568B2
    2014 : Filed by EagleView
         : Inventors assign to EagleView
    2015 : Morgan Stanley first lien
         : Morgan Stanley second lien
    2016 : Patent issued Dec 6
    2017 : Second lien released
    2018 : HPS second lien added
         : Morgan Stanley first lien restated
         : Old first lien released
    2021 : GAF suit filed in NJ
    2025 : New Morgan Stanley first lien
         : HPS second lien released
         : Prior first lien released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No conveyance transfers the patent to any "IP / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" LLC. Every post-issuance instrument is a first-lien or second-lien security agreement or its release, recorded between operating entities (Eagle View Technologies, Inc., Pictometry International Corp., OmniEarth, Inc.) and institutional lender agents (Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.; HPS Investment Partners, LLC). Liens are not shell transfers.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee or secured party in the record appears on Acacia/Marathon/IV/IPNav/Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Vringo/Pendrell/Innovatio/MPHJ/Spangenberg-type NPE lists. The entity asserting this family in court is EagleView itself (see signal 5 and Verdict).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / insufficient data. I could not retrieve correspondent-of-record names for any entry (see sourcing caveat above). I will not speculate; verification at the USPTO Assignment Center by reel/frame is required to test this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no consecutive chained ownership transfers through successive LLCs. The 2015/2018/2025 clusters are lender lien grants and releases tied to debt refinancings of the same operating group — a normal leveraged-finance pattern, not a cascading shell chain. Intervals are multi-year, not <24-month churn.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The first infringement suits naming family patents including 9514568B2 were filed in 2021–2022 (NJD 1:21-cv-10669 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. GAF Materials LLC — patent list includes 9514568B2; D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283 and 2:22-cv-00215 against Nearmap). The closest preceding ownership event was the August 2018 lien refinancing — roughly three years before the first suit, and it was a security agreement, not a title transfer arranged for standing/venue. No title transfer immediately preceded suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. has not filed Chapter 7 or Chapter 11; no trustee or bankruptcy-court sale appears in the record.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer. EagleView (the operating company that sells the roof-measurement reports embodying the claims) appears as plaintiff in its own name, together with subsidiary/affiliate Pictometry International Corp. — classic direct operating-company assertion, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates with Eagle View Technologies, Inc., an operating company that actively asserts.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. — the original and current assignee of record, which sells the EagleView roof-measurement reports that embody the claimed invention — is the plaintiff asserting family patents including 9514568B2 against actual competitors (e.g., NJD 1:21-cv-10669 against GAF Materials; D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283 / 2:22-cv-00215 against Nearmap US). The complete recorded conveyance history for this patent consists of the 2014 inventors-to-company assignment plus lender security agreements and releases (2015 Morgan Stanley first/second liens, 2017 second-lien release, 2018 HPS second lien and Morgan Stanley first-lien restatement, 2018 and 2025 releases) — none of which moves title to any NPE or shell entity. No shell-transfer, cascading, privateering, bankruptcy, or defensive-aggregation signal is present; the only signal I could not test (repeat correspondent) was unverifiable because reel/frame correspondent data was not retrievable in my searches. Verify the underlying reel/frame numbers and correspondents directly at the USPTO Assignment Center quick lookup: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search (patent no. 9514568) and https://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=pat&pat=9514568.

I have to stop after the searches above and work from the retrieved materials. Here is my best-supported analysis, with the limits of what the searches actually returned clearly flagged.

1. Verification of the target record

I could not pull a live USPTO PatFT/Patent Center full-text record within the search window; the authoritative documents I did retrieve and used are:

• USPTO-format PDF of US 9,514,568 B2 (cover page and References Cited appear in the OCR): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/67/db/c0/8580575d941639/US9514568.pdf
• Google Patents record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9514568/en
• Unified Patents litigation/IPR record for US-9514568-B2 (lists a 124-item "Patent Art" set and the litigation dockets): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9514568-B2
• Litigation context confirming 9514568B2 is being asserted (Eagle View v. Nearmap, stayed pending PTAB): https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-case-stayed/

Verified bibliographic facts: US 9,514,568 B2, "Aerial roof estimation systems and methods," Pershing & Carlson, filed Mar. 3, 2014, issued Dec. 6, 2016, 18 claims / 13 drawing sheets, priority chain back to Apr. 17, 2007 (provisional 60/925,072). No search result contradicted these.

2. References cited on the face of 9514568B2

Critical caveat: the OCR of the USPTO PDF (retrieved above) gives a partial and partly garbled rendering of the "(56) References Cited" block. It is truncated mid-list at "7,376…", and several lines appear merged or possibly mis-OCR'd. I reproduce the entries literally as printed in the retrieved OCR and do not "auto-correct" any number or date; flag with "‡" where the OCR formatting looks unreliable. Title/subject-matter information for each entry is not carried in the retrieved snippet, so I have only described those I could independently identify; everything else is listed as printed without a title I can verify.

U.S. Patent Documents (as printed on the face, from the USPTO PDF OCR)

Foreign Patent Documents (as printed)

Non-Patent Literature (as printed)

• Collins, Robert T. et al., "The Ascender System: Automated Site Modeling from Multiple Aerial Images," Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 72, No. 2, Academic Press, Nov. 1998.

The OCR snippet for the NPL section is also truncated; the face of the patent likely carries additional NPL entries (the retrieved Unified Patents file-history list shows many more items of record, e.g., Pictometry "Electronic Field Study™ User Guide," AppliCad materials, PhotoModeler archive pages, Shahrabi thesis, etc.).

3. Most relevant prior art for §102 analysis

For §102 timing, the relevant critical date is the earliest effective filing date of the claims (assumed Apr. 17, 2007, provisional 60/925,072). Because the patent issues from a continuation filed Mar. 3, 2014 but claiming priority to pre-AIA applications, pre-AIA §102 (first-to-invent) analysis is the more natural frame; I note this as an assumption, not a verified determination.

Prior art that is not available as §102 art against 9514568B2 includes the same-family documents printed on the face (AU 2008230031 B2; and the family members US 8,670,961 B2 / US 2014/0177945 A1 that appear in Google Patents "Also Published As" listings) — common ownership and shared priority preclude self-anticipation.

Ranking the genuinely relevant art:

1. US 6,333,749 B1 (Reinhardt et al., Adobe) – "Method and apparatus for image assisted modeling of three-dimensional scenes" (issued 12/2001; well before 2007).

   • Discloses building a 3D scene model from multiple photographic images by user-assisted point correspondence/registration.
   • Relevant to the reconstructed independent-claim elements "receive first and second aerial images providing different views," "correlate the images (register corresponding points)," and "generate a 3D model." It does not appear to disclose roof-specific planar sections with slope/area/edge-length attributes, or the annotated roof-estimate report.

2. Collins et al., "The Ascender System" (Nov. 1998) – automated site (building) modeling from multiple aerial images.

   • Relevant to multi-view aerial correlation and 3D building/roof-model generation; no roof-estimate reporting or per-section slope/area annotation.

3. US 7,233,691 B2 (Setterholm/Geospan) – volumetric image processing ("any aspect"), filed Dec. 1999, issued June 2007.

   • §102(e) art (filed pre-2007 even though it issued after the Apr. 17, 2007 critical date). Relevant to deriving 3D geometry from multiple aspect imagery; not to the roofing report format.

4. US 6,496,184 B1 (Freeman et al./Mitsubishi) – scene inference from images via Markov networks (1998–2002).

   • Relevant only to automatic image-feature understanding; peripheral to the report-generation claims.

5. Additional family file-history art of record in prosecution/litigation (per the Unified Patents portal, not confirmed on the face of 9514568B2) that is materially closer to the roof-estimation subject matter:

   • US 7,728,833 B2 (SRI) – "Method for generating a three-dimensional model of a roof structure" (filed Aug. 17, 2004 → §102(e) art).
   • US 7,424,133 B2 (Pictometry) – "Method and apparatus for capturing, geolocating and measuring oblique images" (filed Nov. 7, 2002).
   • US 8,131,514 B2 – "…transmitting roof and building structure of a 3D representation of a building roof" (filed Oct. 10, 2005).
   • DE 19857667 A1 (Aerowest) – "Process for creating a three-dimensional object description" (Dec. 14, 1998).
   • Pictometry "Electronic Field Study™ User Guide" v2.7 (Jul. 2007) and AppliCad materials (2000–2002) — NPL used in the family IPRs.
     I flag these as file-history/litigation art rather than confirmed front-page citations of 9514568B2, because the front-page OCR I retrieved truncates before the end of the U.S. list and does not show them.

4. Claim-by-claim §102 anticipation assessment

Honesty constraint first: I still do not have verbatim text of the 18 claims of 9514568B2 (the retrieved Google Patents full text truncates before the claims; the USPTO PDF claims column was not retrievable in full within search limits). The mapping below is therefore an element-level framework against the reconstructed independent claim(s) (FIG. 8 embodiment: two aerial images of different views → correlation/registration → 3D model of planar roof sections with slope/area/edge attributes → annotated top-down roof-estimate report), consistent with the family claims of 8,145,578/8,078,436/8,670,961. It is not a claim-text-grounded anticipation chart, and I recommend pulling the claims column from the USPTO PDF before using this for litigation-grade work.

• Independent claim core elements (reconstructed): (a) receiving/accessing a first and a second aerial image of a building roof providing different views; (b) correlating the two images (e.g., via point registration, optionally operator-assisted); (c) generating a three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of planar roof sections each having an associated slope, area, and edge lengths; (d) preparing/transmitting a roof estimate report with one or more annotated top-down views carrying numerical values (slope, area, edge length) for at least some roof sections.

• Single-reference anticipation is unlikely for the full independent claim. None of the retrieved references combines: two-view aerial imagery correlation + roof-plane segmentation + per-section slope/area/edge extraction + generation of the specific annotated multi-page roof report (FIGS. 5A–5F). For example:

  • Adobe '749 and Ascender get to (a)–(b) and arguably generic (c), but neither discloses the roofing report artifacts of (d).
  • SRI '833 and Aerowest are roof/3D-model specific but were not confirmed on the face of 9514568B2 and do not, on what is known, disclose the report-generation/annotation step.
  • Pictometry '133 discloses oblique-image capture, geolocation and measurement, but not the 3D planar-section model + annotated-report combination claimed here.

• Where individual references could potentially meet individual claim elements:

  • Claim elements limited to "receive two aerial images of different views" and "register/correlate corresponding points" are the most exposed; Adobe '749 and the Ascender paper are the strongest single-document candidates for those elements.
  • Any claim element reciting "identify ridge/valley/hip features" or "determine pitch of each roof section" would be the second-most exposed category (SRI '833-style roof reconstruction art, if properly in evidence, is the closest).
  • Dependent claim elements tied to the report itself — annotated top-down plan views, per-section square-footage/pitch labels, label-sizing for readability, inclusion of a cost estimate from user-supplied material/labor costs — appear to be the elements least likely to be disclosed by any single prior-art roof-modeling reference.

• Doctrine caveats: §102(a)/(b) analysis turns on publication dates relative to Apr. 17, 2007 (several references issued after that date — e.g., US 7,233,691 B2 (6/2007), the 2007–2008 entries — can only be §102(e) art if their underlying applications were filed before the critical date, which is true of Setterholm/Geospan but must be verified for each 2007–2008 issue). Foreign/NPL dates shown (e.g., CN 102194120 A, Sep. 2011; AU 2008230031 B2, 2009) are after the 2007 critical date and cannot be §102(a)/(b) art for claims entitled to the 2007 priority date.

5. Bottom line

• The front-page citation list of 9514568B2 is only partially retrievable from the sources above (truncated at "7,376…"); I have reproduced it literally and flagged OCR anomalies rather than guessing.
• The most relevant prior art identified for the reconstructed claims are: US 6,333,749 B1 (Adobe/Reinhardt), Collins et al. "The Ascender System" (1998), and — if the full front page or file history confirms them as of record — US 7,728,833 B2 (SRI roof-model), US 7,424,133 B2 (Pictometry oblique measurement), and DE 19857667 A1 (Aerowest).
• On the information retrieved, no single reference appears to anticipate the full independent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, because none discloses the complete combination ending in the annotated roof-estimate report with per-section slope/area/edge-length values. The realistic §102 exposure is limited to narrower elements (two-view image correlation and 3D model generation), and the strongest overall validity attack on this family has been obviousness (§103) — as reflected in the PTAB/CAFC outcome on the sibling '961/'436 patents noted in the prior summary (CAFC, Feb. 3, 2026, Nos. 24-1488/24-1549), which is not a decision on 9514568B2 itself.

For claim-exact anticipation mapping, the next step should be retrieving the claims column of https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/67/db/c0/8580575d941639/US9514568.pdf (or the USPTO Patent Center record), which was beyond my search limit here.

Preliminary flags (read first)

1. No Prior Art section was actually provided in the working materials. The user message says "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but the supplied patent text (the Google Patents capture of US9514568B2) was truncated before the claims and did not include the "Citations"/"Referenced By"/"Patent Citations" blocks, and no separate prior-art compilation was attached. I therefore reconstructed the prior-art landscape from live web searches below and flag that these are the best-available sources rather than a curated page. Where a fact comes from a search result rather than training data, I cite the URL.
2. Verbatim claim text of US9514568B2 is not available in the working materials. As noted in the prior section, I do not have authoritative claim language for the '568 patent. The analysis below therefore uses the claims of the same-specification, same-family patents US 8,670,961 and US 8,078,436 (whose claim language is partially confirmed by the PTAB Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit opinion cited below) as the best proxy. Because '568 is a continuation in the same chain (priority to 12/148,439 → 8,145,578; family priority April 17, 2007), a § 103 analysis of '568 must be re-run on its own claim text, but the art and the Graham reasoning carry over almost unchanged.
3. Post-search correction to my earlier summary: my prior summary said the February 3, 2026 Federal Circuit decision concerned only '961/'436. The searches confirm that is still correct — the CAFC decision does not name 9514568B2 — but the decision is directly relevant here as persuasive authority because the PTAB held claims of the '961 and '436 patents (same specification, overlapping claim concepts) unpatentable as obvious over the Littleworth–Linder–Middlebrook combination, and the CAFC affirmed.

1. Legal framework

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA § 103(a) applies, given the April 17, 2007 priority date) is assessed under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when a PHOSITA would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success — no rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation test is required.

Person of ordinary skill in the art (circa 2007): an individual with a bachelor's-level background in photogrammetry, remote sensing, computer graphics, or civil/architectural engineering; practical familiarity with analytical photogrammetry (deriving 3-D coordinates from overlapping aerial photographs), CAD/modeling tools (e.g., AutoCAD), and the roofing trade convention of expressing slope/pitch as inches of rise per 12 inches of run. The Federal Circuit's February 3, 2026 opinion confirms that, in the context of this very specification, "calculate" and "determining" were construed to encompass estimation/approximation, which materially lowers the bar for showing these limitations in the prior art. See Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nos. 24-1488, 24-1549 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/03/federal-circuit-upholds-ptab-finding-aerial-imaging-patents-obvious/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10783305](/patent/10783305)/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/.

2. Primary combination: Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook (the IPR-confirmed ground)

This is the combination the PTAB found rendered the analogous claims of family patents '961 and '436 unpatentable, and which the Federal Circuit affirmed on February 3, 2026:

Sources: PTAB Final Written Decision, Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., IPR2022-01009, Paper 28 (Dec. 14, 2023), at https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPR2022-01009.pdf; IPWatchdog summary; CourtListener combined opinion, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783305/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc/; Fed. Cir. Blog docket summary, https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/02/03/opinions-orders-february-3-2026/.

2.1 Mapping to the claim model (with the caveat that '568's exact claim text is unverified)

Using '961 claim 1 (partially confirmed by the CAFC as reciting "calculat[ing] a pitch for each one of a plurality of roof sections of the roof based on the image analysis," with a computing system/memory/roof-estimation-module preamble, a report with annotated top plan views of slope/area/edge lengths, and dependent claims adding combined-area and pre-analysis-undefined-spatial-relationship limitations), the PTAB's element-by-element analysis maps as follows — and the same mapping would be asserted against the parallel '568 claims:

• Computing system / memory / "roof estimation module" including a "calibration module": Linder discloses a PC with RAM and hard disk and a digital photogrammetry software package "subdivided into several modules"; the Board accepted that routine modular subdivision of the combined software was well-known and obvious. IPR2022-01009 FWD at * (claim elements [1.1], [1.2]).
• First and second aerial images providing different views of the roof: Littleworth uses "top" and "oblique" aerial images of the same building. The term "aerial images" was construed broadly enough to cover the oblique imagery in Littleworth (including imagery from elevated platforms); the PTAB expressly rejected Eagle View's narrower "taken from the air" construction as inconsistent with the shared specification (which lists street-view vehicles, towers, hilltops, etc.). IPR2022-01009 FWD; slide deck at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549767](/patent/1549767)/download-documents.
• Image analysis correlating/co-registering the images: Linder teaches photogrammetric correlation and triangulation — the same technique the '568 specification describes ("projecting a line … intersection of these projected lines … build a 3D model").
• Generating a 3-D model with a plurality of planar roof sections having slope, area, and edge lengths: Littleworth's 3-D building models include digitized roof planes "indicating their pitch." The PTAB credited Nearmap's expert that modeling a pitched roof inherently requires a determination/calculation of the pitch of each roof plane from the images.
• Calculating pitch: satisfied by Littleworth alone (inherent in digitizing pitched roof planes into the 3-D model) and/or by Middlebrook, which teaches CAD calculation of "angular dimensions (i.e., pitch)" from a 3-D model. The CAFC expressly approved this dual theory: "the Board understood Nearmap's combination as incorporating Littleworth's teachings regarding generating a three-dimensional model based on image analysis with Middlebrook's disclosure of 'calculat[ing] … angular dimensions (i.e., pitch)' associated with such models." CourtListener opinion at *8 (quoting '961 Decision, 2023 WL 8651434, at *25–26).
• Report containing annotated top-down plan views with numerical slope/area/edge-length values: Middlebrook teaches selecting "Top" views (top-down/plan views of the X-Y plane) in viewports, annotating model views with dimensions, and generating a "plot"/printed output — i.e., an annotated plan-view roof report. Littleworth itself lists AutoCAD as the CAD system used in its analytical-photogrammetry projects, which is the very link the Board used to justify combining Littleworth with Middlebrook.
• Dependent-style limitations: combined area of roof sections — Linder's area-computation teachings and/or Middlebrook's geometry calculation; "spatial relationship … undefined before the image analysis" — the Board accepted that the relationship between Littleworth's vertical and oblique photos is not known until photogrammetric analysis defines it (as Linder explains).

2.2 Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success

The motivation findings that the PTAB made, and the CAFC upheld as supported by substantial evidence, translate directly to '568:

1. Littleworth + Middlebrook: Littleworth expressly identifies AutoCAD (the very system Middlebrook documents) as the CAD environment used for its analytical-photogrammetry modeling; a PHOSITA needing to communicate Littleworth's roof measurements would naturally use Middlebrook's taught tools for plan views, dimension/pitch annotation, and plotted report output. The benefit — communicating measurements of the model to people without access to the 3-D model or software (e.g., the printed roof-estimate report of FIGS. 5A–5F of the '568 specification) — is an articulated, rational reason to combine.
2. Littleworth + Linder: Littleworth supplies the application (3-D building/roof modeling from top and oblique photos); Linder supplies the textbook algorithms for image analysis/co-registration/triangulation. The CAFC held the relevant inquiry is whether a PHOSITA would find Linder's teachings pertinent to Littleworth's problem — not whether Linder's stereoscopic examples are identical to Littleworth's non-stereoscopic imagery — and affirmed the Board's finding that Linder's teachings are not limited to stereoscopic pairs. This defeats the principal "no motivation / incompatible" argument Eagle View pressed.
3. Reasonable expectation of success: all three references operate in the same technical field (photogrammetric 3-D modeling, CAD, reporting); the combination is no more than the predictable application of standard photogrammetry (Linder) and CAD annotation/plotting (Middlebrook) to Littleworth's known roof-modeling workflow.

2.3 Procedural confirmation and weight

• IPR2022-01009 (patent '961): claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 — unpatentable, § 103(a) over Littleworth + Linder + Middlebrook (FWD Dec. 14, 2023).
• IPR2022-01090 (patent '436): claims 1–42, 46–66 — same result (per CAFC summary).
• CAFC affirmed both on Feb. 3, 2026 (Nos. 24-1488, 24-1549), rejecting Eagle View's claim-construction, inherent-disclosure, and motivation-to-combine arguments.

These holdings are not technically res judicata for 9514568B2 (which was not before the PTAB in those cases), but they are highly persuasive: same specification, substantially overlapping claim elements, and the same art. A petitioner or defendant challenging '568 would file essentially the same ground against the '568 claims, with the CAFC affirmance as powerful supporting authority. Note, though, that the '568 claims must be checked individually: if any '568 claim adds limitations beyond the '961/'436 claims (e.g., specific user-interface features, geocoding by street address, label sizing/orientation for readability, or cost estimation), those limitations may need supplementation from additional references (Section 4).

3. Why the combination is not saved by the specification's "advances"

The '568 specification's own description concedes that the building blocks were conventional in 2007: geocoding an address to coordinates, querying an aerial-image database, photogrammetric triangulation to build a 3-D model, and CAD-style annotation of plan views (FIGS. 5C–5E showing ridge/valley lines, pitch per roof section, and square footage). The specification even describes the core algorithm as a "variety of photo-grammetric algorithms … described in detail in textbooks, trade journals, and academic publications" — i.e., the Littleworth/Linder-type literature. Under KSR, combining these known tools to produce an annotated roof-measurement report is the sort of "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" that is likely obvious, particularly given the CAFC's confirmation that "determining/calculating pitch" includes estimation. See IPWatchdog (Feb. 3, 2026), supra.

4. Supplementary references (for limitations the primary combination may not reach)

If the '568 claims include limitations not squarely met by Littleworth/Linder/Middlebrook — and depending on what priority date a challenger can defeat (the family's asserted April 17, 2007 date is an obstacle for post-2007 references; if the '568 claims are not fully supported by the 2007 provisional, later references may qualify, as litigated for the '436 patent in the Xactware case) — the following additional art would be relevant:

• US 7,424,133 (Pictometry; priority 2002–03, issued 2008): "Method and apparatus for capturing, geolocating and measuring oblique images." Pre-2007 priority; discloses geolocated oblique aerial imagery used for photogrammetric measurement of structures — a classic primary reference for oblique-image measurement. See https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7424133B2](/patent/US7424133B2)/en.
• Sungevity US 8,417,061 / US 8,417,062 (filed/priority 2008): address-based retrieval of aerial images, tracing roof planes, and obstruction/shading analysis for solar placement — relevant to any claim limitation on address/geocode lookup plus roof-section delineation. Xactware successfully moved in the NJD litigation to add Sungevity as prior art against the same-specification '436 patent (motion granted May 2, 2017). See https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2015cv07025/[325251/543](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=325251-0543)/0.pdf. Priority caveat: Sungevity's earliest provisional is Feb. 1, 2008, which postdates the EagleView family's asserted Apr. 17, 2007 provisional; whether it is § 102 art depends on whether the challenged claims are entitled to the 2007 date (the same dispute that arose in the Xactware case).
• Pictometry roof-measurement family (US 8,401,222 / US 8,542,880 / US 9,244,589; filed 2009+, priority 2009): user-entered location data, nadir + oblique imagery, roof-plane delineation, and attribute reporting. Priority caveat: as continuations of the '133 line these may reach back only to 2002–2003 for some disclosures (the '133 core) but the roof-measurement-specific subject matter appears to have 2009 priority, so these would only be prior art if the '568 claims cannot hold the April 2007 date.
• CAD/photogrammetry textbook and modeling art such as the exhibits in the IPR record (e.g., Lee, "Interactive 3D Building Modeling Using a Hierarchical Representation"; Laycock, "Automatically Generating Roof Models from Building Footprints") — useful for any claim limitation on automated roof-plane extraction from imagery/footprints.

5. Counter-considerations and honest risk assessment

• Secondary considerations. Eagle View has, in some forums, prevailed with objective-indicia evidence: in IPR2022-00734 (a different Eagle View patent directed to user-interface features), the Board found secondary considerations "decisive" — although the Director vacated and remanded for a full Graham analysis (Finnegan client alert, June 18, 2024, http://www.finnegan.com/print/content/[410376](/patent/410376)/Director-Review-The-Board-Must-Resolve-Claim-Construction-Disputes-and-Analyze-Each-of-the-Graham-Factors-When-Weighing-Objective-Evidence-of-Nonobviousness.pdf). In the '961/'436 IPRs, however, the same commercial-success/industry-praise-type arguments did not overcome the prima facie case, and the CAFC affirmed. For '568, a challenger should therefore expect Eagle View to press secondary considerations (commercial success of its aerial roof-measurement products, industry praise, licensing) and should be ready to rebut nexus (i.e., that the success is attributable to the claimed features rather than to the aerial-imagery library/business model).
• Claim-by-claim risk. Because I could not verify the '568 claims verbatim, a rigorous § 103 opinion must be finalized only after pulling the claims column from the USPTO PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/67/db/c0/8580575d941639/[US9514568](/patent/US9514568).pdf) or USPTO Patent Center. If, for example, '568's independent claims recite the FIG. 9 single-image "economy" embodiment (a substantially top-down image refined with user-supplied pitch data) rather than the FIG. 8 two-image embodiment, the Littleworth/Linder combination still fits (Littleworth's single-image-plus-knowledge approach and Linder's monoscopic techniques), but the mapping would need to be re-done.
• Effective-priority-date vulnerability. The Xactware litigation shows the family's priority chain is attackable (the district court denied Eagle View's motion to exclude Sungevity as prior art to the '436 patent, declining to hold that Eagle View had proved entitlement to the provisional date). If a challenger can show the '568 claims are not entitled to the April 17, 2007 provisional (e.g., new matter added in the '578/'961/'568 chain), the available prior-art pool expands to include Sungevity (2008) and the Pictometry roof-measurement patents (2009+).

Bottom line

The strongest § 103 case against US9514568B2 is the Littleworth (1992) + Linder (2003) + Middlebrook (2004) combination — all pre-2007 publications — on the theory that Littleworth supplies top/oblique aerial-photogrammetric 3-D roof modeling (roof planes "indicating their pitch"), Linder supplies the image-correlation/triangulation algorithms, and Middlebrook supplies CAD plan-view selection, pitch/dimension calculation, annotation, and report plotting. That exact combination has already been held to render the parallel claims of the same-specification '961 and '436 patents obvious under § 103(a), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on February 3, 2026 — rejecting Eagle View's arguments on "calculate/determine pitch" construction, inherent disclosure, and lack of motivation to combine. Unless the '568 claims contain materially narrower limitations (which I could not verify from the materials provided) or Eagle View's secondary-considerations evidence prevails with a properly established nexus, the Littleworth–Linder–Middlebrook ground is the combination most likely to render the '568 claims obvious, with Sungevity and the Pictometry '133/roof-measurement line as supplementary references depending on the priority-date fight.