U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Patent Appeal Against Apple, Google, and LG

In a closely watched dispute that sits at the intersection of patent validity, administrative review, and high-stakes smartphone litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 2025, declined to hear an appeal brought by Gesture Technology Partners against Apple, Google, and LG. The Court’s denial of certiorari leaves intact a Federal Circuit decision that invalidated Gesture’s camera-technology patent and affirms the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority to review patents even after they expire.

The dispute originated in 2021, when Gesture Technology Partners, an entity founded by inventor Timothy Pryor, filed infringement suits against the three tech companies based on a portfolio of camera-related patents. Although the patents in question expired in 2020, Gesture argued that infringement occurred before expiration and therefore remained actionable. In response, Apple, Google, and LG petitioned the PTAB to invalidate the patent, and the Board ultimately canceled most of the challenged claims. The Federal Circuit went further and invalidated the patent in its entirety.

Gesture asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that once a patent expires it no longer implicates “public rights,” a constitutional standard that underpins the PTAB’s authority under the America Invents Act. According to Gesture, expired patents should be adjudicated exclusively in Article III courts, not through administrative review. By denying review, the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Circuit’s decision to stand without providing additional guidance on the constitutional question.

Why This Case Matters 

1. PTAB Review of Expired Patents 

The case reinforces the Federal Circuit’s position that the PTAB may review patents even after they expire. This remains a significant issue for patent owners who pursue late-stage enforcement or maintain portfolios nearing the end of their term. For defendants, the ruling confirms a strategic pathway to challenge validity regardless of timing. 

2. Enforcement and Monetization Strategies 

The decision creates additional risk for entities asserting older or soon-to-expire patents. Even when infringement allegations relate to pre-expiration activity, petitioners may still turn to the PTAB, and succeed. This dynamic could influence licensing negotiations, portfolio valuation, and case-filing decisions. 

3. Continued Uncertainty in Constitutional Boundaries 

Because the Supreme Court chose not to weigh in, the broader constitutional question remains unresolved. How far does the public-rights doctrine extend? Should expired patents be treated differently? These are issues that may reappear in future litigation, especially as patent owners increasingly challenge the boundaries of PTAB authority. 

4. Implications for Practitioners and In-House Counsel 

For companies regularly targeted in patent litigation, especially in consumer electronics, the ruling reinforces the value of PTAB petitions as a defensive tool. For law firms and attorneys, the outcome offers another datapoint in assessing PTAB success rates, timing considerations, and risk management strategies. 

5. A Data-Driven Trend to Watch 

This decision aligns with a multi-year trend: PTAB remains a dominant forum for validity disputes involving complex technology, even when patent terms have lapsed. For analytics-focused organizations, tracking how many expired patents undergo PTAB review, and their success rates, will offer valuable insight into how the system is evolving.