[United States] Sierra Wireless v. Sisvel (CAFC, March 2025)
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: United States
Topics: Novelty
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-10-08 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[United States] Sierra Wireless v. Sisvel (CAFC, March 2025)
The PTAB's decision in an IPR finding lack of novelty and obviousness was overturned.
Unlike the PTAB, the CAFC construed the claim language according to its plain meaning to require both “process [c] (stopping the timer if previously unreceived data is received before the timer expires)” and “process [d] (sending a report for retransmission of unreceived data after the timer expires)” to be performed, rather than treating them as alternative conditional branches.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The source contains an apparent typographical omission in its opening sentence; the intended grammatical statement is translated without changing the outcome described.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments