Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOJune 3, 2026·24-2345·Affirmed.

Amsted Rail Company, Inc. v. Squires

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decisions in IPR2023-00538 and IPR2023-00539 under Fed. Cir. R. 36, so the Board's rulings in both inter partes reviews stand. The judgment gives no reasoning and does not identify the issues.

Why It Matters

The result is clear: the Board's decisions in both IPRs stand. The judgment gives no rationale, so it offers no guidance beyond that outcome.

Full Summary

Amsted Rail Company, Inc. v. Squires The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decisions in IPR2023-00538 and IPR2023-00539 under Fed. Cir. R. 36, so the Board's rulings in both inter partes reviews stand. The judgment gives no reasoning and does not identify the issues. The result is clear: the Board's decisions in both IPRs stand. The judgment gives no rationale, so it offers no guidance beyond that outcome. Affirmed. Amsted Rail appealed from PTAB decisions in two inter partes reviews, IPR2023-00538 and IPR2023-00539 (appeals 2024-2345 and 2025-1067). The USPTO Director intervened and argued through the Solicitor's Office; counsel for Amsted Rail also argued. Holding and result: the panel (Prost, Chen, and Stark) affirmed per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 without opinion, leaving the Board's decisions in both IPRs in place. The judgment does not state the patents, claims, grounds, or which party prevailed before the Board, so the substantive issues cannot be determined from the text. The disposition is nonprecedential. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential

Key Points

  • Amsted Rail appealed from PTAB decisions in two inter partes reviews, IPR2023-00538 and IPR2023-00539 (appeals 2024-2345 and 2025-1067).
  • The USPTO Director intervened and argued through the Solicitor's Office; counsel for Amsted Rail also argued.
  • Holding and result: the panel (Prost, Chen, and Stark) affirmed per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 without opinion, leaving the Board's decisions in both IPRs in place.
  • The judgment does not state the patents, claims, grounds, or which party prevailed before the Board, so the substantive issues cannot be determined from the text.
  • The disposition is nonprecedential.
Rule 36 affirmancenon-precedential
Read Full Opinion

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to Federal Circuit? See our Federal Circuit page