Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc., Lg Electronics Inc., Lg Electronics USA, Inc., Google LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellant
v.
APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
ELECTRONICS USA, INC., GOOGLE LLC,
Appellees
______________________
2023-1463
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-
00922, IPR2022-00090, IPR2022-00360.
______________________
Decided: January 27, 2025
______________________
ERIC CARR, Williams, Simons, and Landis PLLC, Aus-
tin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARK
J OHN EDWARD MC CARTHY , F RED WILLIAMS ; J OHN
WITTENZELLNER, Philadelphia, PA.
J ONAS WANG, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for all appellees. Appellee Apple
Inc. also represented by MELANIE L. BOSTWICK; ELIZABETH
MOULTON, San Francisco, CA; CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN, A DAM
Case: 23-1463 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. APPLE INC. 2
P RESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS; P AUL
R. HART , Denver, CO.
STANLEY J OSEPH P ANIKOWSKI, III, DLA Piper LLP
(US), San Diego, CA, for appellees LG Electronics Inc., LG
Electronics USA, Inc. Also represented by MATTHEW D.
SATCHWELL , Chicago, IL.
ERIKA ARNER, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
& Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Google LLC.
Also represented by DANIEL C OOLEY , Reston, VA.
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
In our companion opinion, In re Gesture Tech. Partners,
LLC, No. 24-1037, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“In re Ges-
ture”), issued concurrently with this opinion, we affirm the
Board’s decision that claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 14–30 of U.S.
Patent 8,553,079 (“the ’079 patent”) are unpatentable. All
but two of those claims (i.e., claims 10 and 13) overlap with
the claims at issue in the underlying inter partes review
proceeding of this appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons we
explained in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d
1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the appeal of those overlapping
claims is rendered moot in light of our companion decision
in In re Gesture.
We are left with claims 10 and 13, which depend from
claim 1 and 11, respectively. The Board held claims 1, 2,
4–14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24–28, 30 unpatentable as obvious over
U.S. Patent 6,144,366 (“Numazaki”). Because Gesture
does not independently address claim 10 or 13 on appeal,
we do not either. The decision of the Board, holding those
remaining claims unpatentable, is therefore affirmed.
Finally, Gesture argues that the Board lacked jurisdic-
tion over this IPR proceeding because the ’079 patent has
expired. That issue has been resolved, and rejected, in the
Case: 23-1463 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. APPLE INC. 3
separate opinion of Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners,
LLC, No. 23-1501, slip op. at 5–7 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-1463 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 3 of 3 --