Inconsistent Claim Constructions in District Court and the PTAB Doom Apple’s IPRs

On June 24, 2026, Director Squires denied institution of five inter partes reviews filed by Apple, Inc. against five WeCrevention, Inc. patents directed to high speed memory chip modules. The reason: Apple took claim construction positions before the Board that flatly contradicted the positions it advanced in parallel district court litigation. WeCrevention sought discretionary denial, and Director Squires agreed that Apple’s inconsistent positions, offered without explanation, warranted denying all five petitions.

Director Squires grounded the denial in his recent precedent requiring a petitioner to take one claim construction position and hold it across forums. See Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632 (precedential); Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456. As he put it:

As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. . . . Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation.

In IPR2026-00239 and IPR2026-00240, Apple told the Board that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” It added that “Petitioner does not concede that the preambles of the Challenged Claims are limiting.” In district court, Apple argued the opposite, asserting that “[r]eview of ‘the entirety of the patent’ makes clear that the preamble phrase ‘high speed memory chip module’ contains the core of what the inventors ‘actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims,’ . . . and so the preamble should be limiting.”

In IPR2026-00241, IPR2026-00242, and IPR2026-00243, Apple identified “input/output unit” as a means-plus-function term, mapped the prior art “regardless of whether ‘input/output unit’ is construed as a §112(f) means-plus-function limitation,” and stated that it “is not conceding . . . that the ’017 Patent provides adequate structure for the ‘input/output unit.’” In district court, Apple argued that the same term “[l]acks sufficient structure (indefinite),” contending that “[t]he specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for performing input and output operations with respect to memory.”

WeCrevention pinned the contradiction in a single sentence the Director adopted:

[T]o the extent § 112(f) governs, then either input/output unit 106 is sufficient corresponding structure (in which case [Petitioner’s] district-court indefiniteness argument fails), or it is not (in which case [Petitioner’s] IPR mapping relies on a structure [Petitioner] itself maintains is inadequate).

“I agree,” the Director wrote, finding that Apple’s refusal to concede adequate structure “only compounds the problem,” and that “Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” He cautioned that while specific arguments were highlighted, “the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.”

* * *

The message is clear. The Director will police forum-driven inconsistency aggressively, and a petitioner who hedges before the Board while taking sharper positions in district court now risks denial on that basis alone. The practical lesson is direct. Lock down a single claim construction position early, carry it into both forums, and explain any divergence in the petition itself. For petitioners with co-pending litigation, claim construction strategy is no longer two separate exercises. It is one record the Board will read in full.

Apple, Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc., IPR2026-00239 et al. (PTAB June 24, 2026) (Paper 11) (Director Squires).

The author is a patent trial lawyer and member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group at Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP. Stradling represents inventors, patent owners, and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation in U.S. District Courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including IPRs and EPRs pending before the PTAB. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949-725-4151 or GCordrey@stradlinglaw.com.