Opinions — Friday, February 27, 2026

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision upholding claims 2–4 and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943, owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, against Apple Inc.'s inter partes review petition alleging obviousness. The Board had rejected Apple's challenges based on two reference combinations: Byrne-WO748 (claims 3–4) and Raleigh-Byrne (claims 2–4, 15–20). Apple appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding insufficient motivation to combine Byrne and WO748 and no reasonable expectation of success for the Raleigh-Byrne combination.

The court's analysis turned on whether the Board reasonably understood Apple's petition as requiring Byrne's telephone to communicate over WO748's virtual private network. Apple contended on appeal that claim 3 required only the network switch box—not the wireless device itself—to join the virtual network, and thus the Board improperly evaluated motivation based on whether VPN benefits would apply to Byrne's phone. The Federal Circuit found Apple failed to show the Board's reading was unreasonable, noting that neither party sought claim construction before the Board and that the claim language and specification reasonably supported reading claim 3 as contemplating the device communicating over the virtual network. Reviewing the Board's factual findings on motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success for substantial evidence, the court affirmed without reaching the Board's alternative ground regarding reasonable expectation of success for the Byrne-WO748 combination.

In re Tesla, Inc. involves Tesla's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the USPTO Director to vacate decisions denying institution of inter partes review in four IPR proceedings and to reconsider without relying on time-to-trial as a criterion. The Federal Circuit denied the petition, holding that Tesla failed to establish a clear and indisputable right to relief where the Director exercised discretion to deny institution based on efficiency concerns given the progress of parallel district court litigation, and rejecting Tesla's ultra vires and notice-and-comment rulemaking arguments. The court granted four unopposed motions for leave to file amicus briefs.