Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, Netapp Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
Appellant
v.
ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC.,
Appellees
______________________
2016-1930, 2016-1931
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No.
IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209.
______________________
Decided: June 6, 2017
______________________
ROBERT P. COURTNEY , Fish & Richardson P.C., Min-
neapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by
J OHN A. D RAGSETH , CONRAD G OSEN; RUSSELL T. WONG,
Blank Rome LLP, Houston, TX.
J ARED BOBROW, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Red-
wood Shores, CA, argued for appellees. Also represented
by AMANDA BRANCH , D EREK C. WALTER .
______________________

-- 1 of 2 --

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. v. ORACLE CORPORATION 2
Before REYNA, L INN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Crossroads”) appeals from
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) inter partes
review (“IPR”) decisions finding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11,
13, and 14–39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 (“’147 patent”)
unpatentable as obvious.
Our decision today in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cis-
co Systems, Inc. et al., Nos. 2016-2017, -2026, and -2027,
addresses largely the same arguments and finds the same
claims of the ’147 patent to be unpatentable. For the
reasons articulated in that decision, here too we affirm.
These two appeals further argue that the PTAB erred
in finding certain claims obvious over a combination of
U.S. Patent No, 6,219,771 (“Kikuchi”) and other refer-
ences. This is an independent ground of obviousness.
Because we have already found these claims obvious
based on other references, we need not reach these argu-
ments.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Each party to bear its own costs.

-- 2 of 2 --