St Case1tech, LLC v. John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2023-2335
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
00302.
______________________
Decided: October 9, 2025
______________________
T IMOTHY D EVLIN, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington,
DE, for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW P ETER
D EMARCO, R OBERT J. G AJARSA , J ASON M ITCHELL SHAPIRO.
P ETER J. AYERS , Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interve-
nor. Also represented by MAI-T RANG D UC D ANG.
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 2
______________________
Before D YK, HUGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
ST Case1Tech, LLC (“Case1Tech”) appeals the final
written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) involving
U.S. Patent No. 9,609,424 (“’424 patent”).1 Case1Tech
principally argues the Board erred in its construction of
“processor” as used in claim 1 of the ’424 patent. The Di-
rector of the Patent Office (“Director”) intervened to defend
the Board’s judgment. We affirm.
I
Case1Tech is the assignee of the ’424 patent, which is
entitled “Method and Device for Personalized Hearing.”
The patent discloses an “electronic audio device for use
with at least one earpiece . . . or a pair of earpieces in a
headphone.” ’424 patent Abstract. For purposes of this ap-
peal, claim 1 is representative:
An electronic audio device for use with at least one
earpiece or a pair of earpieces, or a pair of earpieces
in a headphone, each earpiece having a microphone
operatively coupled to the earpiece and a speaker
located therein, comprising:
1 On March 3, 2025, we granted former appellant
Staton Techiya, LLC’s unopposed motion to substitute ST
Case1Tech, LLC as appellant. See ECF No. 16 (explaining
that ’424 patent was assigned to Case1Tech after this ap-
peal was filed). Accordingly, although the final written de-
cision and the briefing refer to Staton Techiya, LLC, we
identify Case1Tech as appellant.
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 3
circuitry operatively coupled to the microphone
and speaker;
a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a
seal quality of the earpiece based on seal quality
measurements made while driving or exciting a
signal into the speaker located in the earpiece;
and
wherein the processor is configured to generate
a visual or audio message identifying whether
the at least one earpiece is properly sealed
based on the seal quality measurements.
(Emphasis added)
In its final written decision, the Board held that peti-
tioners, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Elec-
tronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung”), proved claims
1-11 unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Publi-
cation No. 2004/0196992 (“Ryan”), alone or in combination
with other prior art.2 In reaching this conclusion, the
Board construed claim 1’s processor limitation – “a proces-
sor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality of the ear-
piece based on seal quality measurements made while
driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the
earpiece” – as requiring the processor to evaluate seal qual-
ity but not requiring that the processor also drive or excite
the signal into the speaker. Appx19-23 (“Significantly, alt-
hough the claim language states that the processor ‘evalu-
ate[s] seal quality,’ it does not state that the processor
drives or excites the signal into the speaker.”). Applying
this construction, the Board then determined that Ryan
disclosed the claimed “processor” with its “processing
2 The Board did not find claims 12-20 to be unpatent-
able. That conclusion is not challenged in this appeal.
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 4
circuitry 40,” rendering the challenged claims of the ’424
patent obvious. Appx23-25.
II
Claim construction is a question of law that may be
based on underlying factual findings. See Teva Pharms.
U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332-33 (2015).
Similarly, obviousness presents a question of law based on
underlying factual findings. See Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). We review the Board’s legal
conclusions de novo and any underlying findings of fact for
substantial evidence. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto.
Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
III
Case1Tech argues that the Board erred in construing
claim 1’s processor limitation too broadly, as the Board did
not include in its construction the requirement that the
processor, in addition to evaluating seal quality, also needs
to drive or excite the signal into the speaker. 3 We disagree
with Case1Tech and instead agree with the Board’s con-
struction.
The claim language of the processor limitation only re-
quires the processor to evaluate the seal quality using the
seal quality measurements as inputs. Nothing in the lan-
guage of the processor limitation also requires that it be
the processor – as opposed to some other component of the
overall device – that performs the driving or exciting a sig-
nal into the speaker located in the earpiece. These
3 On appeal, Case1Tech also argues that claim 1 re-
quires that the processor not just evaluate, but also “make
the recited ‘seal quality measurements.’” Opening Br. 18.
However, it did not raise this claim construction argument
below, so we need not consider it here. See Netflix, Inc.
v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 5
conclusions, as to what is required by the processor and
also what is not required by the processor, are evident from
the plain terms of the processor limitation:
a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a
seal quality of the earpiece based on seal qual-
ity measurements made while driving or ex-
citing a signal into the speaker located in the
earpiece.
Again, this language expressly specifies that the processor
evaluates seal quality (“a processor . . . to evaluate a seal
quality”). But nowhere does it further specify that the pro-
cessor must also drive or excite a signal into the earpiece
speaker. While the claim language identifies when seal
quality measurements must be made – “while driving or
exciting a signal into the speaker” – it does not identify
which component drives or excites the signal that leads to
such measurements.
As the Board observed, numerous claim limitations call
out tasks the processor must perform, such as “the proces-
sor is configured to generate a visual or audio message”
(claim 1[c]), “the processor by way of the speaker and mi-
crophone adjusts the audio” (claim 3), and “the processor
determines whether the earpiece is properly inserted”
(claim 5). Appx20. The contrast between these directives
and the silence with respect to which component is respon-
sible for exciting or driving the signal confirms that the
proper construction should not require the processor to ex-
cite or drive the signal.
The specification further supports this construction by
repeatedly describing what the processor can do but no-
where identifying driving or exciting a signal as a task the
processor must perform. See ’424 patent at 4:14-20, 5:20-
30 (describing actions processor can perform). The specifi-
cation also states that the disclosed embodiments are
“merely illustrative in nature and [are] in no way intended
to limit the invention,” ’424 patent at 3:12-14, which
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 6
indicates to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the
processor limitation should be understood broadly, and not
in the narrow manner Case1Tech proposes.
In support of its proposed construction, Case1Tech re-
lies heavily on the ’424 patent’s figures and the absence of
any express disclosure of a component other than the pro-
cessor that is capable of performing the measurement func-
tion. It is well-settled that claims are not limited to
embodiments depicted in the figures of a patent. See GE
Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, as claim 1 is a “comprising”
claim, its scope “does not exclude additional unrecited ele-
ments,” Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d
1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted), which means the claim can encompass an unrecited
component that could perform the exciting or driving a sig-
nal function. In sum, in view of the other intrinsic evidence
we have described, a skilled artisan would not understand
that the claims and specification of the ’424 patent are cir-
cumscribed in the manner Case1Tech advocates.
The Board found additional support for its construction
in the extrinsic evidence, including its evaluation of the
parties’ competing expert opinions. Appx20-22. We must
generally defer to the Board’s decision to credit one expert
over another. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v.
Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here we
will do so, especially as Case1Tech failed to address the
Board’s evaluation of the extrinsic evidence until its reply
brief, and even then, unpersuasively.
Thus, we agree with the Board that the proper con-
struction of the processor limitation requires that the pro-
cessor evaluate seal quality but does not require that the
processor also drive or excite a signal into the speaker.
Case1Tech makes no argument that, under this construc-
tion, the Board’s finding that Ryan renders claim 1 obvious
is not supported by substantial evidence.
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

ST CASE1TECH , LLC v. SQUIRES 7
IV
We have considered Case1Tech’s other arguments but
find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons
stated, we affirm the Board.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2335 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 10/09/2025

-- 7 of 7 --