The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision in favor of Intel Corporation and Dell Technologies Inc. in a patent dispute with 3D Surfaces, LLC, according to a January 8, 2026 judgment.
The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance, a summary disposition that indicates the appeals court found no reversible error in the Patent Board's decision. The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes.
The case consolidated two appeals, numbered 2024-1909 and 2024-1910, challenging decisions from four separate inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The underlying IPR cases were numbered IPR2022-01589, IPR2022-01591, IPR2023-00004, and IPR2023-00006.
Inter partes review is a post-grant proceeding conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that allows third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents. These proceedings have become a common tool for defendants in patent litigation to invalidate patents they are accused of infringing.
3D Surfaces, LLC served as the appellant in the Federal Circuit case, seeking to overturn the Patent Board's rulings. The company was represented by Marc Belloli of Bunsow De Mory LLP in Redwood City, California, who argued the case before the Federal Circuit. Additional counsel included Elizabeth Day and Jerry Tice from the same firm, as well as attorneys from Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC in Washington, D.C., including Richard M. Bemben, Jennifer Chagnon, Richard Crudo, and Jason A. Fitzsimmons.
Intel Corporation and Dell Technologies Inc., along with Dell Inc., were the appellees defending the Patent Board's decisions. Their legal team was led by Louis W. Tompros of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented oral arguments. The companies were also represented by Mark Christopher Fleming and Cynthia D. Vreeland from the same firm, plus Liv Leila Herriot from Palo Alto, California, and Helena Rachael Million-Perez from Denver, Colorado.
The Federal Circuit's decision to issue a Rule 36 affirmance is notable because it provides no written opinion explaining the court's reasoning. Rule 36 of the Federal Circuit Rules allows the court to affirm without opinion when it determines that the issues presented do not warrant a written decision. This type of disposition typically indicates that the appeals court found the Patent Board's reasoning sound and saw no basis for reversal.
The timing of the IPR proceedings suggests this patent dispute has been ongoing for several years. The earliest IPR cases were filed in 2022, with additional challenges initiated in 2023. The Patent Board's decisions in these cases apparently favored Intel and Dell, likely finding the challenged patents invalid.
For 3D Surfaces, the Federal Circuit's affirmance represents a significant setback in what appears to have been a multi-front patent enforcement campaign. The company's decision to pursue appeals in the Federal Circuit after losing at the Patent Board demonstrates the importance it placed on these particular patents.
The outcome benefits Intel and Dell Technologies, two major players in the technology sector that frequently face patent challenges. For these companies, successful IPR proceedings provide a cost-effective alternative to defending patent infringement lawsuits in district court, where damages awards can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, making it the final arbiter in most patent disputes unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. The court's Rule 36 affirmances have become increasingly common in recent years, accounting for a substantial portion of the court's patent decisions.
While the judgment document does not specify the subject matter of the patents at issue, the involvement of major technology companies like Intel and Dell suggests the patents likely related to computer hardware, semiconductor technology, or related innovations in the technology sector.
The nonprecedential nature of the Federal Circuit's disposition, as noted in the judgment, means the decision cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, the outcome still provides insight into how courts evaluate patent validity challenges in inter partes review proceedings.
This ruling adds to the body of Federal Circuit decisions affirming Patent Board determinations in IPR cases, reflecting the specialized tribunal's growing role in patent validity determinations since the America Invents Act created the IPR process in 2012.