In the recent case of Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision that Voice Tech’s U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 was unpatentable as obvious. This ruling addressed key issues including waiver, claim construction prejudice, and obviousness. Notably, the court rejected Unified Patents' argument that Voice Tech forfeited its claim construction arguments by not including them in a rehearing request. The Federal Circuit also declined to consider the merits of claim construction because Voice Tech failed to demonstrate its impact on the obviousness determination, and affirmed the PTAB’s findings on the scope of prior art and motivation to combine references.

In a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) determination that all claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s patent on voice command technology were unpatentable as obvious. The case, Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, also clarified that arguments not raised in a PTAB request for rehearing are not necessarily forfeited on appeal. Unified Patents had challenged the claims of Voice Tech’s U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679, asserting obviousness based on prior art references “Wong” and “Beauregard.” The PTAB sided with Unified, and the CAFC affirmed the decision, addressing key issues on claim construction and the scope of prior art.