Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

Opinion

Case: 23-1674 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 06/18/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

June 18, 2025

ERRATA ______________________

Appeal Nos. 2023-1674, 2023-1701

ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant

v.

ROKU, INC., VIZIO, INC., NINTENDO CO., LTD., NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Appellees

______________________

Decided: June 16, 2025 Precedential Opinion ______________________

Please make the following changes: On page 12, line 11, the phrase “is obvious” should be changed to “would have been obvious.” As a result, the sen- tence should read: “First, Ancora argues that the Board erred in determining claim 1 would have been obvious in light of the Hellman/Chou combination because this com- bination is inoperable.” Case: 23-1674 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 06/18/2025

On page 15, lines 8–9, the phrase “the Board did not clearly err in finding” should be changed to “the Board’s finding,” and the following phrase should be added to the end of the sentence: “was supported by substantial evi- dence.” As a result, the sentence should read: “The AMI press release and agreement were directed to commercial- ization plans for “BIOS-based security products,” J.A. 44 (emphasis added), and the Board’s finding that Ancora did not link up those products to the challenged claims was supported by substantial evidence.”