IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Obviousness affirmed in aerial roof measuring dispute, (Feb 3, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The PTAB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony.

A patentee failed to show any error in a PTAB determination that its system and methods for measuring roofs using aerial photographs was unpatentable as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The board properly relied on expert testimony and the ordinary meaning of disputed claim terms (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026)).

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (Eagle View) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,670,961 (the ’961 patent) and 8,078,436 (the ’436 patent), both of which were entitled “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods” and shared a specification and related to systems and methods for remotely creating estimates involving roofs on buildings using a plurality of aerial images. Nearmap US, Inc. (Nearmap) petitioned for inter partes review of several claims of each patent on the ground of obviousness over a combination of three prior art references consisting of an academic article and two textbooks. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review and found the challenged claims unpatentable. Eagle View appealed.

Claim construction. Eagle View argued that the board erred by construing the terms “calculate a pitch” and “determining a pitch” as encompassing what it characterized as inaccurate or unreliable calculations. The court found that based on the language of the specification the plain meanings of the terms “calculation” and “determination” do not require any particular level of precision and would encompass an estimate.

Obviousness. Eagle View argued that the board erred by concluding that one prior art reference disclosed calculating a roof pitch without demonstrating that a pitch calculation was present in the prior art reference’s system. The court found that substantial evidence would have supported the finding that this prior art reference disclosed the calculation of a pitch, and also that the board did not in fact rely solely upon that reference for the pitch calculation. The court also found that the board’s rejection of Eagle View’s argument about whether a skilled artisan would have combined two of the prior art references was supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony.

The court affirmed the decision of the board.

The Case is No. 24-1488.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Debra Janece Mccomas (Haynes and Boone, LLP) for Eagle View Technologies, Inc. LaurenAnn Degnan (Fish & Richardson PC) for Nearmap US, Inc.

Companies: Eagle View Technologies, Inc.; Nearmap US, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews