by Dennis Crouch
Quick post in a trio of non-precedential decisions. Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305, 23-2294, 23-2335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2025) (all nonprecedential).
The basic holding: A party may not alter the scope of the claim construction positions it took before the Board. Claims constructions not presented to the lower tribunal (here the PTAB) will not be considered on appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Samsung had petitioned for IPR of ST Case1Tech’s always-on recording patents, arguing that the claimed “audio forensics analysis system” encompassed speech-to-text functionality disclosed in the prior art. Before the Board, Case1Tech argued that “analysis” means “calculation of noise dosage” using a specific measurement used for hearing protection. After losing at the Board, Case1Tech altered its position on appeal, arguing that audio forensics analysis merely “includes” noise dosage calculation and encompasses any “analysis that uses all captured acoustic data.” I think that their idea on appeal is that this broader construction would be more defensible, while still being narrow enough to avoid the prior art speech-to-text analysis system.
The appellate panel rejected this maneuver based upon forfeiture. Case1Tech told the Board that audio forensics analysis “is the calculation of noise dosage,” it could not later argue on appeal that such analysis merely “includes” noise dosage calculation.
Despite finding forfeiture, the appellate panel also looked at the argument and found it lacked merit. The specification explicitly stated that “audio forensics analysis system” includes “all, either or a combination of” enumerated functionalities, specifically listing “a speech-to-text analysis system.” This intrinsic evidence was dispositive.
A Companion Case: In the third decision (No. 23-2335), involving personalized hearing device technology, the court rejected Case1Tech’s argument that a “processor” limitation required the processor to both evaluate seal quality and drive a signal into a speaker. The claim language expressly required only evaluation; nothing mandated that the processor also perform signal-driving. The court also refused to address a new argument—that the processor must “make” seal quality measurements—because Case1Tech never raised this construction before the Board.