Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of Apple’s IPR petition against the ’098 patent in the high-speed memory-module technology area under § 314(a) discretionary authority. The denial turned on Apple’s unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions between PTAB and district court for the “input/output unit” limitation under § 112(f), which the Director found problematic under Revvo and Infineon; no prior Board institution decision was reversed.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that petitioners must present and apply a single, consistent claim-construction position across PTAB and parallel litigation, or provide a cogent explanation for any divergence. Strategic hedging on § 112(f) structure or indefiniteness can support discretionary denial before the merits are reached.
How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Board's or the Director's decision. Read the document itself before relying on the summary. Editorial policy
- Written description, enablement and indefiniteness (§ 112) →
- Anticipation and prior art (§ 102) →
- Obviousness (§ 103) →
- Claim construction →
- PTAB discretionary denial →
- PTAB Director Review →
New to Patent prosecution? See our Patent prosecution page
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 19, 2026Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II
- 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