The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 2025) provides important insights into patent law, particularly in the context of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and obviousness determinations. This ruling builds on the court’s earlier January 2025 decision in another dispute involving Gesture Technology Partners, reinforcing key legal principles regarding patent validity and the scope of IPR challenges.

Below, we explore the major legal issues addressed in this case, how they connect to the January ruling, and what they mean for the future of intellectual property law in the tech industry.

---

Background of the Case

The dispute centers around U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (the ’431 patent), which relates to gesture-based input methods using cameras and optical sensors. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Gesture) sued Apple, LG Electronics, and Google for alleged infringement of the ’431 patent. Apple and its co-appellees petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), challenging the patent’s validity based on prior art.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that most claims were unpatentable but upheld claims 11 and 13. Apple appealed this decision, while Gesture cross-appealed, arguing that additional claims should remain valid.

The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the PTAB’s findings, ruling that claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 were unpatentable, while upholding claims 11 and 13.

---

Connection to the January 2025 CAFC Decision

This decision follows and reinforces the January 2025 ruling in Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Unified Patents LLC, another Federal Circuit case involving Gesture’s ’431 patent. In that case:

• The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that claims 7–9 and 12 were unpatentable, relying heavily on prior art disclosures in the Numazaki reference.
• However, the court also upheld the PTAB’s ruling that claims 10, 11, and 13 were not unpatentable, which became a key point of contention in Apple’s subsequent appeal.

The March 2025 ruling effectively follows the logic of the January 2025 decision, particularly in two major ways:

1. Reaffirming PTAB’s Findings on Patent Validity:
   • Both cases emphasized that Numazaki disclosed fundamental aspects of gesture-based control, making most of Gesture’s claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
   • The Federal Circuit consistently deferred to the PTAB’s factual findings regarding how Numazaki rendered certain claims unpatentable.
2. Consistently Upholding Claims 11 and 13:
   • The January 2025 case upheld claims 10, 11, and 13, creating a foundation for Apple’s subsequent challenge.
   • In the March 2025 decision, Apple sought to overturn the PTAB’s finding on claims 11 and 13, arguing that the Board misapplied the obviousness standard—but the Federal Circuit again upheld these claims, reinforcing its prior stance.

Together, these two decisions establish a strong precedent for how courts evaluate IPR outcomes, particularly in disputes involving expired patents and prior art analysis.

---

Key Legal Issues Addressed by the Court

1. Obviousness and Prior Art

The primary legal issue in both cases was whether the patent claims were invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court ruled that most of the patent’s claims were obvious in light of prior art—particularly U.S. Patent No. 6,144,366 (Numazaki).

• Apple argued that Numazaki disclosed similar technology and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed invention obvious.
• Gesture countered that Numazaki did not sufficiently teach key elements of the ’431 patent, particularly its sensing and image-processing functionalities.

In both cases, the court upheld the PTAB’s determinations, reaffirming that Numazaki was sufficient prior art to invalidate most claims.

---

2. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Estoppel and Standing

Apple faced a procedural challenge regarding IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), which bars petitioners from re-litigating arguments that were (or could have been) raised in an earlier IPR.

• Gesture argued that Apple should be estopped from challenging claims 11 and 13 because it was allegedly a real party in interest or privy of Unified Patents, the petitioner in the earlier January 2025 case.
• The court rejected this argument, holding that Gesture had forfeited this claim by not raising it before the PTAB.

This ruling aligns with the January 2025 decision, where the court emphasized that procedural challenges must be properly raised at the PTAB stage, not on appeal.

---

3. Means-Plus-Function Claims and Claim Construction

Another major issue was the interpretation of means-plus-function claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

• The March 2025 decision reaffirmed that Numazaki adequately disclosed structures corresponding to the claimed “sensing means” and “computer means” in the ’431 patent.
• Gesture’s arguments that the Numazaki reference did not sufficiently disclose tracking and image analysis were rejected—just as they were in the January 2025 case.

---

4. PTAB’s Jurisdiction Over Expired Patents

Gesture made a broader challenge, arguing that the PTAB lacks jurisdiction over expired patents—a claim it also raised unsuccessfully in the January case.

• The March 2025 ruling definitively rejected this argument, reaffirming the Federal Circuit’s prior holding that expired patents remain subject to IPR challenges.
• This decision aligns with the court’s reasoning in January 2025, reinforcing that patent expiration does not shield invalid claims from IPR proceedings.

---

Implications for Patent Holders and Tech Companies

The two 2025 Federal Circuit rulings offer several key lessons for companies engaged in patent litigation, particularly in the tech sector:

1. Strengthen Patent Drafting & Prosecution – Ensure patents are clearly distinct from prior art to withstand obviousness challenges.
2. Raise Procedural Challenges Early – Issues like IPR estoppel and standing must be raised at the PTAB stage, not for the first time on appeal.
3. Be Strategic About IPRs – Defendants should carefully assess prior art before filing an IPR to maximize their chances of invalidation.

With the continued expansion of gesture-based and optical-sensing technology, these cases serve as important precedents in software and hardware patent disputes.

---

Final Thoughts: A Consistent Approach to Patent Challenges

The January and March 2025 decisions together paint a clear picture:

• The Federal Circuit remains deferential to PTAB findings, particularly in IPR proceedings.
• Courts continue to take a rigorous approach to obviousness analysis, ensuring that patents covering well-known technologies do not survive merely due to clever claim drafting.
• Expired patents remain vulnerable to challenges under IPR, reinforcing the importance of early and thorough patent prosecution strategies.

As the tech industry continues to develop new gesture-based and camera-driven input systems, these rulings may have far-reaching consequences for how such patents are drafted, enforced, and challenged in the future.

By Charles Gideon Korrell