`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Appellant
`
`ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE
`FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER
`SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE,
`Intervenor
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Cross-Appellant
`______________________
`
`2020-2239, 2020-2294
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
`00047.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 24, 2022
`______________________
`
`GREGORY H. LANTIER, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also
`
`
`
`Case: 20-2239 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2022
`
`2
`
`INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`represented by DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, CLAIRE
`HYUNGYO CHUNG, THOMAS SAUNDERS; BENJAMIN S.
`FERNANDEZ, Denver, CO; JAMES M. LYONS, Boston, MA.
`
` MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, Office of the Solicitor,
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,
`VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by SARAH E.
`CRAVEN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN
`RASHEED.
`
` ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, ar-
`gued for cross-appellant. Also represented by THOMAS W.
`RITCHIE; ROBERT BREETZ, DAVID B. COCHRAN, JOSEPH M.
`SAUER, Cleveland, OH; KELLY HOLT, New York, NY;
`JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC.
`______________________
`
`Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`Appellant Intel Corporation appeals a final written de-
`cision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding
`that Intel did not meet its burden to show certain claims of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 are unpatentable as anticipated
`or obvious. Initially, Intel filed five petitions for inter
`partes review challenging the same claims of the ’356 Pa-
`tent on different grounds. See Appellee’s Br. 11–12. The
`Board concluded in each inter partes review that Intel
`failed to show unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`See id. The above-captioned appeals stem from one of those
`final written decisions. J.A. 1–46.
`In the above-captioned appeals, Intel contends that
`claims 1, 7–8, 10–11, and 17 of the ’356 Patent are un-
`patentable. Appellant’s Br. 15. Notably, in another of In-
`tel’s appeals, we determined that claims 1–8, 10–11, and
`17–18 of the ’356 Patent are unpatentable as obvious. Intel
`Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 20-2092 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`
`
`Case: 20-2239 Document: 93 Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2022
`
`INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`3
`
`Accordingly, the present appeals are moot. See BTG Int’l
`Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 923 F.3d 1063, 1076–77
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (concluding the claims at issue were un-
`patentable as obvious and consequently dismissing other
`appeals challenging the same claims). Intel’s appeal of
`IPR2019-00047, and Qualcomm’s cross-appeal, are hereby
`dismissed as moot.
`
`DISMISSED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
