Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00243 challenging WeCrevention’s U.S. Patent No. 12,154,652 in the computer-memory module technology area under discretionary authority, effectively § 314(a), based on Apple’s inconsistent claim-construction positions between the PTAB and parallel district court litigation. For the ’652 patent family petitions, Apple treated “input/output unit” as a § 112(f) means-plus-function term and mapped it to disclosed structure for prior-art purposes, while simultaneously arguing in district court that the patent lacks sufficient corresponding structure and is indefinite; the Director found that unexplained divergence improper under Revvo and Infineon and denied institution without any prior Board institution decision to reverse or affirm.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a Director-review trend that petitioners must present and apply one coherent claim-construction position across PTAB and district court, or provide a real explanation for any divergence. Practitioners should expect discretionary denial risk where an IPR relies on a construction or structural mapping that conflicts with a district-court indefiniteness or limiting-construction position.
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
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 28, 2026In re Wenkman
- 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.