Intel Corporation v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Cross-Appellant 2020-2240, 2020-2242, 2020-2295, 2020-2296…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. IPR2019-
00048, IPR2019-00049.
______________________
Decided: March 24, 2022
______________________
G REGORY H. L ANTIER , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also
Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 2
represented by D AVID L ANGDON CAVANAUGH , CLAIRE
HYUNGYO CHUNG, T HOMAS SAUNDERS ; BENJAMIN S.
F ERNANDEZ, Denver, CO; J AMES M. L YONS , Boston, MA.
MAUREEN D ONOVAN Q UELER , Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,
VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by S ARAH E.
CRAVEN, T HOMAS W. K RAUSE, F ARHEENA YASMEEN
RASHEED.
I SRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, ar-
gued for cross-appellant. Also represented by T HOMAS W.
RITCHIE; R OBERT BREETZ, D AVID B. COCHRAN, J OSEPH M.
SAUER , Cleveland, OH; K ELLY HOLT , New York, NY;
J ENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before N EWMAN, 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 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 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 Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

INTEL CORPORATION 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). Ac-
cordingly, 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 chal-
lenging 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.
1 Intel also challenged the patentability of claim 9 in
its petition for inter partes review, but claim 9 is not at is-
sue here because Qualcomm disclaimed claim 9. Appel-
lant’s Br. 15 n.2; J.A. 3049–52.
Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2022

-- 3 of 3 --