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

Silence Is Not Surrender: Federal Circuit Determines that Arguments Omitted in PTAB Rehearing Request Were Not Forfeited on Appeal

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.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), claim construction

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Related Offices

Palo Alto, CA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Victor M. Palace
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4117
Email
Ryan V. McDonnell
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4167
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email

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.

Related Insights

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

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

IP Updates

Tenth Circuit Sides with Netflix in Tiger King Copyright Challenge 

May 5, 2026

Conference

International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement

May 4-5, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing

April 24, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard

April 22, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses Eligibility of Software Claims Where Technical Improvements Were Not Reflected in Claims

April 15, 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