Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC, Nos. 2023-1980, 2023-2076 (June 30, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 9,852,004 and 10,592,275

Key point(s):

• A claim limitation requiring operation “without any communication” excludes even one-way messaging.
• Petitioners in inter partes reviews (IPRs) cannot introduce new obviousness theories in their reply briefs.

Swarm Technology LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Nos. 2023-2323, 2024-1095 (June 30, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 9,852,004 and 10,592,275

Key point:

• Negative limitations like “without any communication” will be read broadly to exclude all types of communication, and claim terms like “proactively” are construed to mean truly unprompted actions.

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, No. 2023-2173 (June 30, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8,293,742

Key point:

• Prosecution arguments narrowing claim scope, even if not phrased as a formal disclaimer, can bind claim interpretation in later proceedings.

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., No. 2023-2308 (June 30, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 6,935,826 and 6,848,875

Key point(s):

• A claim is indefinite if multiple methods of interpreting a structural reference point yield materially different outcomes that affect infringement.
• When competing expert methods yield conflicting results affecting claim coverage, and the intrinsic record provides no resolution, claims may be invalidated for indefiniteness.