INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED , No. 20-2240 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2022 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 2020-2240, 2020-2242, 2020-2295, 2020-2296 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR201900048, IPR2019-00049. ______________________ Decided: March 24, 2022 ______________________ GREGORY H. LANTIER, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also Case: 20-2240 2 Document: 95 INTEL CORPORATION Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2022 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, argued 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 two final written decisions 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 Patent 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 two of those final written decisions. J.A. 1–64. In the above-captioned appeals, Intel contends that claims 1–8, 10–11, and 17–18 of the ’356 Patent are Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 INTEL CORPORATION Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2022 v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 3 unpatentable. 1 Appellant’s Br. 15. Notably, in another of Intel’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). 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 unpatentable as obvious and consequently dismissing other appeals challenging the same claims). Intel’s appeals of IPR2019-00048 and IPR2019-00049, and Qualcomm’s cross-appeals, are hereby dismissed as moot. DISMISSED COSTS No costs. Intel also challenged the patentability of claim 9 in its petition for inter partes review, but claim 9 is not at issue here because Qualcomm disclaimed claim 9. Appellant’s Br. 15 n.2; J.A. 3049–52. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
