Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion for Apple’s IPR against WeCrevention’s memory-related Patent No. 10,998,017, finding Apple’s PTAB claim-construction position on “input/output unit” irreconcilable with its district-court indefiniteness position under § 112(f). Applying the Revvo/Infineon line of Director decisions, the Director held that Apple failed to provide an adequate explanation for taking inconsistent positions in parallel litigation and before the Board; no prior Board institution decision was reversed because institution was denied at the Director-discretion stage.
Why It Matters
This reinforces that petitioners must present and apply a single, consistent claim-construction theory across PTAB and district court or clearly explain any difference. A reservation of rights or non-concession on § 112(f)/indefiniteness can itself support discretionary denial when the IPR mapping depends on structure the petitioner attacks as inadequate in court.
- Written description, enablement and indefiniteness (§ 112) →
- Anticipation and prior art (§ 102) →
- Obviousness (§ 103) →
- Claim construction →
- PTAB discretionary denial →
- PTAB Director Review →
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 7, 2026In re Gamble
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 2, 2026Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc.