Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion in Apple’s IPRs against WeCrevention’s high-speed memory module patents, including IPR2026-00240 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,201,834. The core reason was claim-construction inconsistency: Apple told the PTAB no construction was needed and did not concede the preamble was limiting, while arguing in district court that the “high speed memory chip module” preamble was limiting; under Revvo and Infineon, the unexplained divergence suggested strategic litigation behavior. The Director issued an original discretionary denial and did not reverse or affirm a prior Board institution decision.
Why It Matters
PTAB petitioners should not take materially different claim-construction positions in district court and IPR without a clear explanation. This decision reinforces a Director-review trend using § 314(a) discretion to police inconsistent PTAB/litigation positions even apart from a traditional merits analysis.
- 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.