Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Cout of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1075.OPINION.12-1-2025_2611111.pdf">In re: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, No. 24-1075 (Dec. 1, 2025)</a>, affirming an ex parte reexamination decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as to two claims from Gesture Technology’s patent and dismissing the appeal as to the patent’s remaining claims.

core/paragraph

Based on a request from Samsung, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding directed to the patent’s 31 claims. Subsequently, in separate inter partes review proceedings, the PTAB found all but claims 11 and 13 unpatentable in two final written decisions. Gesture Technology then petitioned to terminate the reexamination proceeding based on IPR-related estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;315(e)(1). The PTAB denied the termination petition, the examiner rejected claims 11 and 13 as anticipated by the prior-art Liebermann patent, and the PTAB affirmed. Gesture Technology appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first dismissed the appeal as to all claims but 11 and 13 because it had previously affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions of invalidity, giving those decisions preclusive effect.

The Court next dismissed Gesture Technology’s challenge to the PTAB’s determination of no estoppel under §&nbsp;315(e)(1) because it deemed that statute inapplicable to ongoing reexamination proceedings. The Court explained that the statute prevents petitioners from “request[ing] or maintain[ing] a proceeding” before the USPTO after IPR decisions issue, and it is the USPTO—and not petitioners—that maintains ex parte reexamination proceedings.

Shifting to the merits, the Court affirmed the PTAB’s anticipation finding. The Court observed that the PTAB had construed the relevant claims’ means-plus-function limitation to require receiving position information, correlating it with a function, and causing the apparatus to perform the function. The Court concluded that substantial evidence showed that Lieberman met these limitations because it disclosed a transmitter/receiver device having a camera that performs initial processing consisting of collapsing a captured image into a small set of fixed identifiers sent to a data processing center.

Finally, the Court rejected Gesture Technology’s argument that the PTAB lacked jurisdiction in the reexamination proceeding because the patent at issue had expired. Noting its prior decision allowing the PTAB to maintain IPR proceedings over expired patents because patentees retained some rights post-expiration, including the right to sue for past damages, the Court reasoned that the same applied in reexamination proceedings, such that a live case or controversy existed.

CAFC Deems IPR-Based Estoppel Inapplicable to Ongoing Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings

Related Professionals