Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc.

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: 1 Filed: 06/18/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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.”
Case: 23-1674 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 06/18/2025

-- 2 of 2 --