This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, all four also come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition for writ of mandamus and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, as well as links to dismissal and erratum.
Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Precedential)
In this inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) determined that claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”) were unpatentable, but it determined that claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown to be unpatentable. Patent owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) cross-appeals the Board’s unpatentability findings as to claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17, and IPR petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals the Board’s findings as to claims 4, 11, and 18. We limit our discussion to claims 1–7 because we have separately affirmed the Board’s decision holding claims 8–18 unpatentable in its ex parte reexamination decision In re Gesture Tech. Partners, No. 2023-001857, Reexamination No. 90/014,903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2023). See In re Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 24-1038, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (nonprecedential).
We affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–3 and 5–7 are unpatentable and reverse the Board’s determination that claim 4 is not unpatentable. We also reject Gesture’s suggestion that the Board lacks jurisdiction in IPRs over patents after their expiration.
CA, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
CA, Inc. (“CA”) appeals from an inter partes review decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) finding its patent – which is directed to a method of automatically storing a set of network objects in cache memory to make those objects quicker and easier to access – invalid as obvious. CA primarily argues that the Board misread the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “cache memory” and that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings leading to its obviousness determination. We agree with the Board’s construction of cache memory and find substantial evidence supports each of the Board’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm.
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In our companion opinion, In re Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 24-1037, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“In re Gesture”), issued concurrently with this opinion, we affirm the Board’s decision that claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 14–30 of U.S. Patent 8,553,079 (“the ’079 patent”) are unpatentable. All but two of those claims (i.e., claims 10 and 13) overlap with the claims at issue in the underlying inter partes review proceeding of this appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the appeal of those overlapping claims is rendered moot in light of our companion decision in In re Gesture.
In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) appeals from an ex parte reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 14–30 of U.S. Patent 8,553,079 (“the ’079 patent”) unpatentable. In re Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 2023- 001713, Reexamination No. 90/014,900 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2024), J.A. 1–30. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) appeals from an ex parte reexamination decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 8–18 of U.S. Patent 8,878,949 (“the ’949 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. In re Gesture Tech. Partners, No. 2023-001857, Reexamination 90/014,903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2023) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–29. For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
In re Berger (Nonprecedential Order)
Daniel A. Berger petitions this court for a writ of mandamus relating to his pending case before the United States Court of Federal Claims. We deny the petition.