Case: 20-2239 Document: 93 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2020-2239, 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.