Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Jeff Ginsberg and George Soussou
March 01, 2025

Federal Circuit: PTAB Jurisdiction Exists Over Expired Patents


On Jan. 27, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes issued a unanimous decision in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, Case Nos. 2023-1501, 2023-1554 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The Federal Circuit determined that the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) has jurisdiction to review claims of a patent that has expired. Slip op. at 3.

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Gesture) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the ’949 patent), entitled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction.” Id. at 2-3. In June 2021, Apple Inc. (Apple) filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, asserting that each claim of the ’949 patent was unpatentable as obvious over two prior art references. Id. at 4. However, at the time of the IPR, the ’949 patent had already expired. Id. Gesture argued that the Board “could not exercise jurisdiction” over the IPR because “the ’949 patent expired in May 2020, before Apple filed its petition in June 2021.” Id. at 5. Gesture argued that “[s]ince the patentee’s right becomes limited to collecting damages … in an Article III court” upon expiration of a patent, “jurisdiction over the expired patent” is also limited to the Article III courts at that time. Id. at 5.

The Federal Circuit noted that although they “have not squarely addressed whether the Board may institute IPRs for patents after they have expired,” the Court has “implicitly assum[ed] that the Board has jurisdiction is such cases.” Id. Here, the Federal Circuit confirmed that “the Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.” Id.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.