直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Claim Construction and Obviousness Analysis for VoIP Patent

May 19, 2021

Authored and Edited by Eric S Magleby; Caitlin E. Fowler; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1403 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision holding 20 of the 25 challenged claims in Uniloc’s patent invalid as obvious.

Uniloc’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552, is directed to systems and methods for policing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) features, such as caller-ID, call waiting, and multi-line services.  Apple petitioned for Inter Partes Review of the ’552 patent in 2018, arguing that a previously issued patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,324,279, rendered all claims of Uniloc’s patent obvious.  The PTAB held that claims 1-17 and 23-25 were invalid as obvious.

On appeal, Uniloc argued that the PTAB’s decision rested on an incorrect construction of the term “intercepting.”  The Federal Circuit rejected Uniloc’s argument that the construction was erroneous because it would encompass a situation where messages are sent intentionally to an intermediary recipient.  The Court found that the PTAB’s construction was supported by the intrinsic evidence, including the specification and prosecution history, and that this evidence outweighed Uniloc’s reliance on dictionary definitions.  The Court also affirmed the PTAB’s holding that Apple failed to establish that claims 18-22 of the ’552 were invalid.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), patentability, validity, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), claim construction, Apple, Inc.

For more information

  • Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc.

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 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