⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Honda and Tesla challenge a Patent Office decision concerning Neo Wireless's patent for organizing wireless transmissions. Think of the available transmission capacity as a grid with time on one axis and frequency on the other. The patent describes arranging data streams into resource segments, aiming to reduce the control information needed to tell devices where their data begins. After automakers challenged the patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found they had not proved the challenged claims unpatentable. A central issue is the meaning of starting time-frequency coordinate: whether separate time and frequency values can satisfy that language. The board relied partly on arguments Neo had made in an earlier Patent Office challenge brought by Dell. You'll hear prosecution disclaimer, the rule that a patent owner's clear and unmistakable statements to the Patent Office can narrow the scope of its claims. This is claim construction, interpreting the words that define patent protection, rather than physically changing the invention. The challengers' lawyer will argue that the board applied that narrowing incorrectly and should reconsider the earlier technical disclosures, called prior art. Neo's lawyer will defend the interpretation and the board's findings. The judges will also explore whether the patent itself supports the same interpretation and whether the challengers properly preserved their separate attack on the prior-art analysis.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC (No. 25-1354) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 2, 2026.