The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision February 13, 2026, in *Apple Inc. v. Squires*, a case pitting some of the technology industry's most prominent companies against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The appellants include Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corporation, with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC also named as plaintiffs.
The case represents the latest chapter in ongoing litigation that began in 2020, when these companies initially challenged certain USPTO policies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Edward J. Davila presided over the original proceedings in case No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Taranto, and Pauline Chen, with Judge Taranto authoring the opinion. The decision comes after a previous ruling by the same court in *Apple Inc. v. Vidal*, 63 F.4th 1 (Fed. Cir. 2023), which had remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Defendant-appellee John A. Squires serves as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, making him the target of the tech companies' legal challenge. The case centers on what the court documents describe as "a challenge by Apple Inc. and four other companies to certain" USPTO policies or decisions, though the complete details of the specific issues remain partially obscured in the available court records.
The legal teams representing the technology giants demonstrate the high-stakes nature of this intellectual property dispute. Mark Christopher Fleming of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston argued for all plaintiffs-appellants before the Federal Circuit. Apple, Cisco, and Intel also retained additional counsel including Gary M. Fox and Alyson Zureick from the firm's New York office, and Mark D. Selwyn from Palo Alto.
Google LLC separately engaged Perkins Coie LLP, with Nathan K. Kelley from the Washington, D.C. office and Andrew Dufresne from Madison, Wisconsin, representing the search giant's interests in the appeal.
The government's defense was handled by the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, with Weili J. Shaw from the Appellate Staff arguing the case. Shaw was supported by Brian M. Boynton from the Civil Division and Michael S. Forman from the Office of the Solicitor at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between major technology companies and federal patent policy. The involvement of such prominent tech firms suggests the dispute likely concerns fundamental issues affecting how these companies protect and enforce their intellectual property rights. The fact that the case has persisted for over five years, surviving multiple appeals and remands, indicates the significance of the legal questions at stake.
The Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from district courts, frequently handles disputes involving USPTO policies and procedures. As the specialized appellate court for intellectual property matters, its decisions often establish precedents that affect patent holders and applicants nationwide.
Edwards Lifesciences' inclusion as a plaintiff alongside the technology giants suggests the legal issues transcend traditional tech sector boundaries. Edwards Lifesciences, known primarily for medical devices and cardiovascular technologies, indicates that the USPTO policies in question may have broader implications across multiple industries that rely heavily on patent protection.
The case's lengthy procedural history, including the prior Federal Circuit decision in 2023 and subsequent district court proceedings on remand, demonstrates the complexity of the underlying legal issues. Such extended litigation typically involves fundamental questions about patent law interpretation or agency authority that require careful judicial consideration.
While the specific outcome of the February 13, 2026, decision remains unclear from the available documents, the case represents a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue between private industry and federal patent policy. The involvement of multiple Fortune 500 companies suggests potential industry-wide implications for how patents are prosecuted, examined, or enforced.
The timing of this decision, coming in early 2026, may reflect broader changes in patent policy or enforcement that have prompted coordinated industry pushback. As technology companies increasingly rely on patent portfolios for competitive advantage and revenue generation, disputes over USPTO procedures and policies have become more common and consequential.
This Federal Circuit decision will likely influence future interactions between major patent holders and the USPTO, potentially affecting how the patent office implements policies and how companies structure their intellectual property strategies going forward.