IP Law Daily, SUPREME COURT NEWS: High Court declines cert in motion-sensing camera technology patent jurisdiction challenge, (Nov 20, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Federal Circuit rulings applying public-rights doctrine remain intact.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a pair of certiorari petitions brought by Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, a motion-sensing camera developer, in a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) authority to adjudicate patent validity after expiration. The denials, issued without comment, leave undisturbed Federal Circuit decisions affirming that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may cancel expired patent claims through inter partes review (IPR) and re-examination, despite the patentee’s loss of exclusivity (Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 24-1280 (U.S. cert. denied Nov. 17, 2025) and Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-1281 (U.S. cert. denied Nov. 17, 2025)).

Background. The petitions stemmed from separate proceedings involving tech giant Apple Inc. and nonprofit patent challenger Unified Patents, LLC. Though docketed independently, the cases raised a common question: whether IPRs initiated post-expiration can constitutionally extinguish vested private property rights without the protections of an Article III court and a jury trial.

Challenge to PTAB’s post-expiration review authority. Gesture’s core contention was that the PTAB’s authority under the America Invents Act (AIA), upheld in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, 584 U.S. 325 (2018), cannot extend to patents that are no longer in force. The expired patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the '949 patent), covered gesture-based imaging technology. Although it lapsed in May 2020, Apple and others initiated IPR proceedings in mid-2021, seeking to invalidate its claims amid litigation seeking damages for past infringement.

In its cert petitions, Gesture argued that Oil States justified administrative review solely on the basis that patents are public franchises—exclusive rights granted by the government in the public interest. Once a patent expires, however, that franchise ends. According to Gesture, only private rights remain—namely, the right to sue for damages for past infringement—which must be adjudicated in court under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. Across several decisions—including Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, 127 F.4th 364 (Fed. Cir. 2025) and Gesture Tech. Partners v. Unified Patents, 2025 WL 687040—the court concluded that the PTAB maintains jurisdiction over expired patents. It reasoned that because patent validity continues to affect pending claims for damages for infringement, public rights remain in play.

Broader implications and competing views. In urging the Court to take the case, Gesture called the PTAB’s exercise of power over expired patents “an extraordinary arrogation of administrative authority.” It stressed that infringement claims involving expired patents, particularly those seeking only monetary relief, have historically been resolved in court. Citing Root v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 105 U.S. 189 (1882), the petition emphasized that the right to damages is a quintessential private property right, traditionally enforceable before a jury.

Gesture also argued that continued administrative review after expiration disrupts this historic division. The IPR process, it claimed, “absorbs and displaces” the patentee’s ability to assert damages claims in court, effectively nullifying private rights without judicial process.

In opposition briefs, Apple and the USPTO defended the PTAB’s authority, asserting that correcting improvidently granted patents, even after expiration, serves an ongoing public interest. Apple’s filings responded separately to the two petitions, while Gesture adopted Apple’s brief in the Unified Patents case. The USPTO, named as a respondent only in the Apple petition, supported the Federal Circuit’s reasoning.

Separate petition raises estoppel and real-party-in-interest issues. In addition to the jurisdictional challenges, Gesture raised concerns about estoppel and coordination between petitioners. In a related March 2025 decision, the Federal Circuit rejected Gesture’s argument that Apple should have been barred from pursuing IPRs on claims already challenged by Unified Patents, even though Unified is an Apple subscriber. Gesture alleged that the PTAB and Federal Circuit improperly avoided assessing whether Unified was a real party in interest to Apple. Gesture asked the Supreme Court to hold the second petition pending resolution of the Apple case. The Court declined both, leaving the Federal Circuit's rulings untouched.

The Case is Dkt. No. 24-1280 and Dkt. No. 24-1281.

Attorneys: David C. Frederick (Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.) for Gesture Technology Partners, LLC. Melanie Lynn Bostwick (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) for Apple Inc. Debra J. McComas (Haynews and Boone, LLP) for Unified Patents, LLC. Stanley J. Panikowski (DLA Piper LLC) for LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA Inc. Ginger D. Anders (Munger Tolles & Olson LLP) for Google LLC. D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, US Department of Justice for Coke M. Stewart.

Companies: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC; Apple Inc.; Unified Patents, LLC

News: Patent FedCirNews SupremeCtNews