Federal Circuit affirms partial win for patent owner against Apple

It applied a reasoned analysis for rejecting

arguments.”- CAFC opinion It applied a rationale analysis for rejecting the [Apple’s] arguments.” – CAFC opinion

The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a precedent-setting decision, upheld a mixed Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that found certain claims of Gesture Technology’s patent on camera sensor technology for handheld gaming and devices to be unpatentable but other claims not proven unpatentable. The inter partes review (IPR) was brought by Apple, Inc., which appealed the Board’s partial finding of unpatentability.

U.S. Patent No. Patent No. Apple appealed, and Gesture counter-appealed. It did not, however, decide whether Apple was a real party or privy of Unified Patents. It did not, however, decide the question whether Apple actually was a real party in interest or privy of Unified Patents.

Turning to Apple’s appeal of the decision on claims 11 and 13, the court rejected Apple’s arguments that the Board misapplied “the legal standard for obviousness by only looking to the explicit disclosures” of the relevant prior art reference instead of the prior art “in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; and said the PTAB failed to “engage in reasoned decision making in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).”

The CAFC said the Board in part relied on the petition’s “lack of analysis” about how the prior art “(with or without the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) would apply to the claim construction that Apple had advocated for” and also disagreed with Apple’s argument that the Board violated the APA by ignoring much of Apple’s evidence. The CAFC said that the Board relied on the petition’s “lack of analysis” about how the prior art “(with or without the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) would apply to the claim construction that Apple had advocated for.” It also disagreed with Apple’s argument that the Board violated the APA by ignoring much of Apple’s evidence. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. Cir. Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

With respect to Gesture’s cross-appeal that the Board’s decision finding claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 were unpatentable was not supported by substantial evidence, however, the CAFC rejected Gesture’s arguments and ultimately affirmed the finding of obviousness.[Apple’s]Eileen McDermott

Eileen McDermott, Editor-in Chief of IPWatchdog.com is a veteran IP and legal journalist. Eileen McDermott is a veteran IP journalist and has held editorial and management positions at