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

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1381.OPINION.12-23-2025_2623346.pdf"><em>Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company</em>, Nos. 2024-1381, -1382, -1383 (Dec. 18, 2025)</a>, affirming three final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all challenged claims of EBS’s licensed patents unpatentable as obvious.

core/paragraph

EBS sued Ford for infringing certain claims of the ’580, ’760, and ’965 patents it licensed from MIT. That case proceeded to a noninfringement judgment after the district court adopted Ford’s claim construction requiring that direct-injection fuel differ from port-injection fuel. EBS appealed, and the Federal Circuit (in EBS I) vacated in part, rejecting the district court’s claim construction. Meanwhile, Ford had filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) advocating a plain meaning claim construction. The Board initially denied institution consistent with the district court’s view of the claims, but later granted rehearing and instituted the IPRs after EBS I. The PTAB issued final written decisions holding all challenged claims obvious, and EBS appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. First, the Court rejected EBS’s challenge to the Board’s rehearing and institution decision. The Court characterized this challenge as effectively asking it to unwind the Board’s grant of rehearing and institution—i.e., to “de‑institute”—based on the Board’s choice to wait to decide Ford’s rehearing request until after this Court’s decision in EBS I. The Court held § 314(d) bars that attack because challenges to reconsideration of institution are indistinguishable from challenges to institution itself and dressing the argument up as a challenge to a supposed “stay” does not change its nature. The Court further noted that no statute or rule sets a deadline for deciding rehearing of institution, so the Board did not issue a cognizable “stay,” and in any event it had sound reasons to await intervening claim‑construction guidance. Accordingly, this was a far cry from the kind of ultra vires “shenanigans” that might be reviewable.

Second, the Court rejected EBS’s bid to bind the Board to an unappealed portion of the district court’s claim construction, finding no cross-proceeding mandate or waiver rule applied and noting EBS forfeited any judicial-estoppel theory. The Court held that the Board permissibly applied the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms where neither party substantively briefed a different construction.

Finally, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s obviousness determinations.

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Rulings in EBS v. Ford

Related Professionals