NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
ST CASE1TECH, LLC,
Appellant
v.
JOHN A. SQUIRES, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
2023-2294
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-00234.
Decided: October 9, 2025
TIMOTHY DEVLIN, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE, for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW PETER DEMARCO, ROBERT J. GAJARSA, JASON MITCHELL SHAPIRO. OMAR FAROOQ AMIN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS, MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, ROBERT J. MCMANUS.
22 ST CASE1TECH, LLC v. SQUIRES
Before PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is a companion to ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306, decided today, in which we affirm the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that claims 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,111,839 are unpatentable for obviousness. In the present appeal, ST Case1Tech brings a materially identical challenge to the Board’s separate decision holding unpatentable claims 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,124,982. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00234 at 65–71 (P.T.A.B. June 14, 2023), J.A. 65– 71. The parties’ briefs here present arguments not materially different from those presented in the companion case and cite no portions of the record materially different from the record materials cited in Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306. Our reasoning in the decision in those two appeals thus applies with equal force here. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.