Case: 23-2294 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ST CASE1TECH, LLC, Appellant v. JOHN A. SQUIRES, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2023-2294 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 00234. ______________________ Decided: October 9, 2025 ______________________ TIMOTHY DEVLIN, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE, for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW PETER DEMARCO, ROBERT J. GAJARSA, JASON MITCHELL SHAPIRO.

OMAR FAROOQ AMIN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS, MAI- TRANG DUC DANG, ROBERT J. MCMANUS.

Case: 23-2294 Document: 81 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2025

2 ST CASE1TECH, LLC v. SQUIRES

______________________ Before PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is a companion to ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306, decided today, in which we affirm the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that claims 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,111,839 are unpatentable for obviousness. In the present appeal, ST Case1Tech brings a materially identical challenge to the Board’s separate decision holding un- patentable claims 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,124,982. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00234 at 65–71 (P.T.A.B. June 14, 2023), J.A. 65– 71. The parties’ briefs here present arguments not materi- ally different from those presented in the companion case and cite no portions of the record materially different from the record materials cited in Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306.

Our reasoning in the decision in those two appeals thus ap- plies with equal force here. Accordingly, we affirm the de- cision of the Board.

AFFIRMED