The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Google LLC did not prove that certain virtual reality (VR) patents owned by DDC Technology, LLC, were unpatentable. The ruling, issued on November 5, 2026, affects the ongoing competition in the VR technology market, particularly as it relates to smartphone-based VR viewers.

This ruling is significant because it reinforces the validity of DDC Technology's patents, which are designed to improve user interaction with VR viewers that utilize smartphones. As VR technology continues to evolve, the outcome of this case could influence future innovations and patent disputes in the tech industry.

Background

Google LLC, a major player in the tech industry, is appealing a decision from the PTAB regarding three of DDC Technology's patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,420,075, 10,528,199, and 11,093,001. These patents relate to a VR viewer that allows users to interact with their smartphone's touchscreen while using the device. DDC Technology, a smaller company, owns these patents, which aim to address limitations in earlier VR viewer designs.

The dispute began when Google petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of these patents, arguing that they were obvious based on prior art, specifically a combination of two references: a Japanese patent publication and a U.S. patent application. The PTAB ultimately ruled in favor of DDC Technology, stating that Google had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the patents were unpatentable.

The Ruling

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, agreeing that Google failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims of the patents were obvious. The court noted, "[O]n balance, Patent Owner’s evidence tending to show nonobviousness outweighs Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness." This finding was based on several factors, including evidence of copying by Google and industry praise for DDC's technology.

The court also addressed specific claims raised by Google regarding the construction of certain patent terms. For instance, Google contested the PTAB's interpretation of the term "disposed on" in one of the claims, arguing it should include indirect connections. The court upheld the PTAB's interpretation, stating that the term did not require direct contact but should exclude connections that are "far removed." The judges on the panel were Reyna, Hughes, and Stark.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both Google and DDC Technology. For Google, the decision means that it must continue to navigate the competitive landscape of VR technology without the ability to challenge these patents successfully. For DDC Technology, the ruling reinforces the strength of its intellectual property rights and may encourage further investment and innovation in its VR products.

The outcome also sets a precedent regarding how evidence of copying and industry praise can influence patent validity determinations. It highlights the importance of secondary considerations in patent law, which can play a critical role in establishing nonobviousness.

What's Next

Google has the option to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether it will pursue that route. Meanwhile, there are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling.