直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Press Release

USPTO Director Reverses IPR Institution, Denies Carbyne's Challenge to CentralSquare's U.S. Patent No. RE50,016 in Full, Citing Inconsistent Claim Constructions

February 19, 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2026

WASHINGTON, DC–Finnegan is pleased to announce a significant victory for client CentralSquare Technologies, LLC (CentralSquare) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

On February 19, 2026, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding No. IPR2025-00959 by Carbyne, Inc., USPTO Director John A. Squires granted CentralSquare's request for Director Review, vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) prior decision granting institution of the IPR, and denied institution of the IPR in its entirety.

The IPR was initiated by Carbyne to challenge the validity of CentralSquare’s U.S. Patent No. RE50,016, titled "SMS Communication During Emergencies." In his detailed order, Director Squires emphasized Carbyne's failure to adequately explain inconsistent claim construction positions advanced in the IPR petition compared to those asserted in the parallel district court litigation, CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v. Carbyne, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01497-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Specifically, in the district court, Carbyne argued that certain "module" claim terms should be construed as means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112, rendering them indefinite due to a lack of corresponding structure in the specification. In stark contrast, Carbyne's IPR petition posited that these same terms required no further construction and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, accepting the patent owner's prior representations during reissue proceedings that the terms refer to computer program modules executed by processors.

Director Squires concluded that such unexplained inconsistencies undermine the USPTO's objectives of providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system. The Director rejected Carbyne's arguments that its positions were not truly inconsistent and that it had provided sufficient justification, noting that merely adopting the patent owner's prosecution statements in the IPR did not explain the divergence from its district court stance.

Importantly, this ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on the parallel litigation pending in the Western District of Texas. By denying institution in full and highlighting Carbyne’s inconsistent claim construction positions, the Director’s decision strengthens CentralSquare’s position in the district court and places significant pressure on Carbyne’s invalidity theories. The order reinforces the need for consistency across forums and signals that strategic divergence between PTAB and district court positions carries real consequences.

Lionel M. Lavenue, counsel for CentralSquare notes, "The Director's decision not only halts this IPR challenge entirely but also compels Carbyne to rethink its overall strategy in the ongoing district court litigation and beyond. We are proud to have secured this outcome for CentralSquare, allowing the company to continue focusing on delivering mission-critical public safety solutions without unwarranted disruption."

 

Contacts
 
Terra Liddell, Chief Marketing Officer
terra.liddell@finnegan.com

Angela Robinson, Director of Branding and Communications
angela.robinson@finnegan.com


About Finnegan
When your most valuable assets are ideas, innovation, and brand—you need the best to protect them. Finnegan, a premier intellectual property law firm, is trusted by global leaders to protect and advance what sets them apart. With 11 offices across the globe, we bring local insight and global reach to every IP challenge. We are located in Atlanta, Boston, London, Munich, Palo Alto, Reston, Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo and Washington, DC. From high-stakes litigation to cutting-edge patent strategy and innovative brand management, we deliver unmatched depth, agility, and results. If it is IP, it is Finnegan. Please visit us at www.finnegan.com or follow us on LinkedIn to see how we’re shaping the future of IP, one breakthrough at a time.

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Communications

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Related Professionals

Lionel M. Lavenue
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2750
Email
Aaron L. Parker
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4387
Email
Cory C. Bell
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1641
Email
Clinton P. Greub
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4020
Email
Guanshi Li, P.E.
Associate
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1653
Email
Bradford C. Schulz, Ph.D.
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2739
Email
Caitlin T. Coverstone
Patent Agent
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4129
Email

Related News

Commentary

Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects

June 30, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings

June 25, 2026

Commentary

Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW

June 24, 2026

Press Release

BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret

June 23, 2026

Commentary

BMW Secures Injunction Forcing Zync to Seek Stay of ITC Trade Secret Case

June 23, 2026

Award/Ranking

Six Finnegan Partners Recognized in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers

June 22, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Recognized in 2026 BTI Client Service A-Team Rankings

June 22, 2026

Commentary

U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case

June 15, 2026

Commentary

Finnegan Taps Partner from Kirkland to Boost IP Team

June 12, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP