Bot M8, LLC v. Sony, Corp.
Patentability filed 24 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 30 Aug 2023, with US7664988B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7664988B2
- Application no.
- US11/205121
- Case no.
- 22-1570
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Mar 2022 – 30 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 524 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Gaming apparatus having memory fault detection
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Gaming apparatus having memory fault detection
An information processing device and associated methodology are provided for inspecting a program fault. A first memory stores a boot program executed when the information processing device is initiated for operation. A second memory device is provided for storing an application program. A control device executes a fault inspection program to inspect whether or not a fault has occurred in the second memory device. The fault inspection program is stored in the first memory device and is initiated upon initialization of the information processing device.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Feb 2010
- Earliest priority
- 25 Aug 2004
- Est. expiry
- 30 Oct 2026
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2020-01288 · Other · filed by Sony Interactive Entertainment LLCIPR2020-01288 · Patentability · filed by BOT M8 LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HAISHIMA, JUN
- Classification
- G06F11/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
- Examiner
- LE, DIEU-MINH
Parties of record
Bot M8, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F11/00
- Counsel
- James R. Hannah
- Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
Sony, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Eric Allan Buresh
- Firm
- Erise, IP PA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| James R. Hannah | Bot M8, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Eric Allan Buresh | Sony, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“We have considered Bot M8’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED.THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1570 · Fed. Cir. · closed 30 August 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1570?
22-1570 is a patent patentability brought by Bot M8, LLC against Sony, Corp., filed on 24 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 30 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1570?
US7664988B2 (“Gaming apparatus having memory fault detection”), assigned to BOT M8 LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Gaming apparatus having memory fault detection.
How was case 22-1570 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “We have considered Bot M8’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED.THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1570 take?
524 calendar days, from filing on 24 Mar 2022 to closure on 30 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1570?
James R. Hannah is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bot M8. Eric Allan Buresh appears for defendant Sony.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1570 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.