In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear an appeal involving the scope of patent review, leaving in place a victory for Apple Inc., Google LLC and LG Electronics Inc.. The case centred on whether the process of patent review can apply to patents that have expired, and by refusing certiorari the Court let the earlier decision stand.
Background of the patent review dispute
The dispute began in 2021 when Gesture Technology Partners LLC (Gesture) sued Apple, Google and LG. The company claimed the tech firms infringed one of its camera-based sensing patents before it expired in 2020. Gesture said the accused companies used the technology in several generations of their smartphones. It also argued that the firms gained a commercial advantage and avoided proper licensing. The lawsuit sought damages and aimed to show that the patent still carried legal weight even after expiration.
The defendants pushed back. Apple, Google, LG and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They asked the board to invalidate the patent through administrative review. The groups argued that the patent lacked novelty and included broad, weak claims. PTAB review, they said, offered the fastest and most efficient path to resolve the dispute.
The PTAB agreed. It canceled most of the patent’s claims. Soon after, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took the process further and ruled that the entire patent was invalid. This ruling strengthened the position of the tech companies because it removed Gesture’s basis for seeking any infringement damages.
Gesture then pushed back again. The company argued that PTAB loses
authority to conduct patent review once a patent expires. In Gesture’s view, the public-rights doctrine ends at expiration. As a result, only federal courts should evaluate expired patents. Gesture also warned that allowing PTAB to review expired patents undermines the stability of the patent system. According to the company, this approach creates uncertainty for inventors who expect
consistent judicial oversight. It also cautioned that such uncertainty may discourage innovation if administrative agencies continue to assert authority over patents after their active lifespan.
Why the patent review question mattered
The issue of
patent review in this context is important for several reasons:
- It raises a constitutional question: whether the PTAB’s review of patents involves “public rights” the “public rights” doctrine has been used to justify agency adjudication rather than Article III courts. If a patent has expired, the argument goes, it no longer implicates public rights and thus must be handled by a traditional court.
- It affects litigation strategy for both patent owners and alleged infringers. If patent review can be applied to expired patents, then companies can continue to challenge patents after their expiration via administrative route rather than only via district court litigation.
- It signals how robust the PTAB’s role remains in the U.S. patent-system, particularly in technology sectors where infringement claims often target large firms with many patents in play.
The Supreme Court’s decision and its implications
By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court kept in place the Federal Circuit’s decision that invalidated the patent through PTAB review. As a result, the doctrine of patent review remains firmly supported in practice.
For tech companies like Apple, Google and LG frequent targets of patent suits the ruling adds stability. These companies can continue to rely on the PTAB process to challenge older patents, even those that have already expired.
Meanwhile, the decision tightens options for patent owners. Once a patent expires, limiting PTAB review becomes far more difficult than Gesture claimed. Because of this, patent holders may need to adjust their strategies, act sooner, and depend more on court litigation instead of waiting for expiration.
Furthermore, the ruling strengthens the role of the PTAB as a central forum in patent law. This development influences future rule-making, shapes internal USPTO procedures and guides how companies approach licensing, enforcement and long-term patent planning.
What this means going forward for patent review practice
Because patent review has now been validated (implicitly) in the context of expired patents, several trends may follow:
- Increased use of PTAB challenges: Companies may more often petition for review of older patents, even those past expiry, to reduce risk of lingering claims.
- Patent-owner strategy shifts: Patentees may push to enforce or license rights before expiry, given the risk of administrative invalidation remains. They might also focus on stronger claims, more robust prosecution and earlier enforcement.
- Regulatory and legislative impact: There may be renewed scrutiny of how PTAB reviews are conducted, especially given the constitutional arguments that were raised (though not resolved) in this case.
- Less certainty for expired-patent owners: The appeal’s refusal means that the legal boundary of PTAB authority over expired patents remains somewhat open but tilted toward reviewability under patent review.
- Litigation-risk recalibration: For high-tech firms, the risk of older patents being revived or remaining enforceable may decline; conversely, inventors face the risk their patents may be undone after expiry via administrative route.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case keeps the status of patent review firmly rooted in U.S. patent law even when patents have expired. This outcome gives practitioners clearer guidance. Because administrative review continues to serve as a powerful tool for resolving disputes. Patent-holders must also recognize that expiration alone does not shield a patent from challenge.
For tech giants and the broader patent system, the decision strengthens the PTAB’s role. And confirms that patent review will remain a central mechanism in high-stakes intellectual-property conflicts.
If you would like, I can also outline how this ruling compares with earlier Supreme Court decisions on PTAB authority and expired patents to show the broader legal trend.
Looking to advance your legal career or explore new opportunities in top law firms?
Visit LawCrossing today to access thousands of verified legal jobs, in-depth career resources, and exclusive hiring insights. Stay ahead in a fast-moving legal market —
start your search on LawCrossing now.The post
SCOTUS Rejects Patent Review Case first appeared on
JDJournal Blog.
