Percept Technologies Inc. appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2023-00495. The USPTO Director, John A. Squires, is the intervenor. The Director moved to remand for additional proceedings, and Percept opposed (Order 1).
The Director's concern
The order quotes the Director's statement that he "has a substantial and legitimate concern that the decision on remand does not provide adequate reasoning for any of the petition's grounds as to how the prior art asserted in those grounds meets the disputed claim limitation 'a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens'" (Order 2, quoting ECF No. 18 at 3).
What the court held
Writing for a panel of Circuit Judges Chen, Linn, and Cunningham in Percept Technologies Inc. v. Squires, No. 2026-1835 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2026) (nonprecedential), Judge Linn cited SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001): an agency may request a remand to reconsider its previous position, and remand is "usually appropriate" if the agency expresses a "substantial and legitimate" concern (Order 2). The court said it was "sympathetic to Percept's concerns regarding further delay" and that it expects the Director "to conduct the remand proceedings in an expeditious manner" (Order 2).
The motion was granted "for the limited purpose of allowing the Director to provide further explanation regarding the issues referenced in this order and the motion." Each party bears its own costs (Order 2).