August 16, 2024
Authored and Edited by Victor M. Palace; Ryan V. McDonnell; Erik R. Puknys
In Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 22-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that all challenged claims of Voice Tech’s patent were unpatentable.
The patent relates to using voice commands to remotely control a computer. Unified Patents petitioned for an inter partes review, asserting that the claims would have been obvious. The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable. Voice Tech sought rehearing by the Board, which the Board denied.
On appeal, Voice Tech challenged the Board’s decision on several grounds, including that the Board misinterpreted certain claim terms. Unified Patents countered that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Voice Tech forfeited those arguments by not raising them in its rehearing request. The Court disagreed with Unified Patents, determining that nothing in the statute or regulations requires a party to request rehearing to preserve a right to appeal and that a party’s choice to not re-raise an argument in a rehearing request does not automatically forfeit the argument for appeal. The Court nevertheless declined to consider Voice Tech’s claim-construction arguments because Voice Tech failed to show any prejudice from the Board’s interpretations.
Voice Tech also argued that Unified Patents’ petition failed to identify a claim element, and that the Board improperly created arguments on Unified Patents’ behalf. The Court disagreed, noting that the petition cross-referenced a relevant prior-art analysis for another claim, so the Board properly adhered to the petition.
Copyright © 2024 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.
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Federal Circuit IP Blog
When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay
May 14, 2026
Articles
Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing
April 24, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
April 22, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
April 15, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.