The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision against Apple Inc. in a patent dispute with LBT IP I LLC, issuing a terse per curiam judgment that provides no detailed reasoning for the court's decision.
The Federal Circuit's Feb. 6, 2026 ruling in *Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLC* represents a setback for the technology giant in its ongoing patent battles. The court issued what is known as a Rule 36 affirmance, which allows the appeals court to affirm lower tribunal decisions without issuing a written opinion explaining its reasoning.
The case originated from Apple's challenge to Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding No. IPR2020-01189, an inter partes review that began in 2020. Inter partes reviews are administrative proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that allow parties to challenge the validity of issued patents on grounds that the patent should not have been granted because of prior art.
Apple filed the appeal as case No. 2024-1508, seeking to overturn whatever adverse determination the Patent Trial and Appeal Board made in the underlying proceeding. However, the Federal Circuit's judgment document does not reveal the specific nature of the patent at issue, the particular grounds for Apple's challenge, or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's reasoning in rejecting Apple's position.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Circuit Judges Raymond Taranto and Kara Stoll. Their per curiam affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36 indicates the panel found no reversible error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision, but chose not to issue a detailed opinion explaining their analysis.
Rule 36 affirmances have become increasingly common at the Federal Circuit as a means of managing the court's caseload while disposing of appeals that present straightforward applications of established law or lack sufficient merit to warrant detailed explanation. These dispositions are considered nonprecedential, meaning they cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases.
Apple assembled a formidable legal team for the appeal, led by Jaysen Chung of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP's San Francisco office, who argued the case before the Federal Circuit. Apple's legal representation also included Brian Rosenthal from Gibson Dunn's New York office, Julia Tabat from the Dallas office, and Jennifer Bailey from Erise IP, P.A. in Overland Park, Kansas.
LBT IP I LLC was represented by Brian Sherwood Seal of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP's Washington, D.C. office, who argued for the appellee. Seal was assisted by colleague Shaun Darrell Gregory in representing the patent holder.
The involvement of multiple major law firms on both sides suggests the patent dispute involved significant commercial interests, though the specific technology or patent claims at stake remain unclear from the judgment document.
Apple's loss at the Federal Circuit continues a mixed track record for the company in patent disputes. As one of the world's most valuable technology companies, Apple faces constant patent litigation both as a plaintiff seeking to protect its innovations and as a defendant accused of infringing others' intellectual property rights.
The inter partes review system, established by the America Invents Act of 2011, was designed to provide a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation for challenging patent validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has proven to be a popular venue for such challenges, with thousands of petitions filed annually.
For patent holders like LBT IP I LLC, successfully defending an inter partes review challenge and subsequent Federal Circuit appeal represents a significant validation of their intellectual property rights. The affirmance strengthens the patent's presumption of validity in any future litigation.
The nonprecedential nature of the Federal Circuit's ruling limits its broader impact on patent law jurisprudence. Rule 36 affirmances do not establish new legal principles or provide guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
Apple could potentially seek further review by petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari, though the high court rarely grants review in patent cases and is particularly unlikely to consider appeals from nonprecedential Federal Circuit decisions. The practical effect of the Federal Circuit's affirmance is likely to be the final resolution of Apple's challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision.
The case reflects the ongoing importance of the Federal Circuit as the primary appellate court for patent disputes, with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. The court's docket continues to be dominated by patent cases, including numerous appeals from inter partes review decisions as companies increasingly use these administrative proceedings to challenge competitors' patents.