Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 23-1126 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-1126
Decided
August 13, 2024
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

TWITTER, INC., GOOGLE LLC,

Cross-Appellants

2023-1126, 2023-1127, 2023-1128, 2023-1130, 2023-1131,

2023-1132

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-00482, IPR2021-00483, IPR2021-00484, IPR2021-00485.

JUDGMENT

KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by CHARLES WIZENFELD, King & Wood Mallesons LLP, New York, NY. NATHAN K. KELLEY, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all cross-appellants. Cross-appellant Google LLC also represented by DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH; ANDREW DUFRESNE, Madison, WI; ANDREW BALUCH, Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, DC.

2DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, for cross-appellant Twitter, Inc. Also represented by DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS; ANGELA M. OLIVER, Washington, DC.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

August 13, 2024

Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 23-1126 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-23-1126-20240813
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-1126-20240813

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error