Federal Circuit IP

In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

By Frank Morton-Park Published January 27, 2026

In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC 

CAFC 2025-1075, decided Dec. 1, 2025 

(Lourie, Bryson, and Chen) 

 

Issues: Whether IPR estoppel applies to ongoing ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) and requires their termination; whether the Board has jurisdiction over expired patents in EPR. 

Overview: IPR estoppel does not prevent the Patent Office from maintaining EPRs requested by IPR petitioner, and the Board retains jurisdiction over expired patents. 

Background 

  • Samsung requested EPR of Gesture’s ’431 patent relating to gesture-based computer sensing technology, which the Patent Office granted. 
  • Two IPRs simultaneously pending: Unified Patents LLC (Samsung member) invalidated claims 7-9, 12; Apple invalidated claims 1-10, 12, 14-31.  
  • After final written decision in the Unified Patents IPR, Gesture petitioned to terminate the pending EPR, arguing Samsung was estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from maintaining a proceeding at the Patent Office challenging the patent on grounds it could have raised in the IPR. The Patent Office denied this petition.  
  • In the EPR, the examiner rejected claims 11 and 13 as anticipated by prior art. The Board affirmed this rejection. 
  • Prior to this appeal’s resolution, the Federal Circuit affirmed the IPR decisions invalidating all claims except claims 11 and 13. 

Holdings: Affirmed Board’s decision as to claims 11 and 13. Dismissed Gesture’s appeal as to claims 1-10, 12, and 14-30 based on prior IPR affirmances.  

Federal Circuit Analysis 

  • A petitioner may request reexamination under § 302 and file an optional reply under § 304, but the Patent Office maintains the proceeding, not the petitioner.  
  • The reexamination statute does not provide for requester involvement after the optional reply.  
  • The Board properly denied Gesture’s termination petition. 
  • The Board has jurisdiction over EPRs regarding expired patents because patentee maintains some rights after expiration, such as past damages.  

 Takeaways 

  • IPR petitioners can request EPRs, which may be maintained by Office even after IPR concludes.  
  • Expired patents subject to review in EPR.