Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOMay 13, 2026·25-1010·Affirmed.

Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed, under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the PTAB decisions in five consolidated inter partes reviews (IPR2023-00357 through -00361), so the Board's decisions stand. The judgment gives no reasoning.

Why It Matters

The Rule 36 judgment leaves the Board's decisions in all five IPRs in place without explanation, so it offers no guidance on the merits and no precedent on the underlying issues.

Full Summary

Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC The Federal Circuit affirmed, under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the PTAB decisions in five consolidated inter partes reviews (IPR2023-00357 through -00361), so the Board's decisions stand. The judgment gives no reasoning. The Rule 36 judgment leaves the Board's decisions in all five IPRs in place without explanation, so it offers no guidance on the merits and no precedent on the underlying issues. Affirmed. Flypsi, Inc. (dba Flyp) appealed five PTAB inter partes review decisions (IPR2023-00357, -00358, -00359, -00360, -00361); Google LLC is the appellee. The appeals were consolidated under Nos. 2025-1010, -1011, -1012, -1020 and -1030. Held: a panel of Judges Reyna, Mayer and Hughes affirmed per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 after oral argument, so the Board's decisions in all five IPRs remain in effect. The judgment contains no opinion, so the issues raised on appeal, the patents at issue, and the Board's rationale are not stated in the document. The disposition is designated nonprecedential. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential

Key Points

  • Flypsi, Inc. (dba Flyp) appealed five PTAB inter partes review decisions (IPR2023-00357, -00358, -00359, -00360, -00361); Google LLC is the appellee. The appeals were consolidated under Nos. 2025-1010, -1011, -1012, -1020 and -1030.
  • Held: a panel of Judges Reyna, Mayer and Hughes affirmed per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 after oral argument, so the Board's decisions in all five IPRs remain in effect.
  • The judgment contains no opinion, so the issues raised on appeal, the patents at issue, and the Board's rationale are not stated in the document.
  • The disposition is designated nonprecedential.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