Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01111/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01111-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CloudofChange, LLC
Appellee
NCR Corporation
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NCR CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2023-1111

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas in No. 6:19-cv-00513-ADA, Judge 

Alan D. Albright.

______________________ 

Decided: December 18, 2024

______________________ 

JERRY ROBIN SELINGER, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, 

Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented 

by KYRIE CAMERON, BARDEN TODD PATTERSON, JOHN 

ALLEN YATES, Houston, TX.

 PAUL WHITFIELD HUGHES, III, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. 

Also represented by ADAM WILLIAM BURROWBRIDGE; 

KATHERINE M. PAPPAS, Irvine, CA.

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2024
2 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

This case asks us to consider again whether to attribute a customer’s use of a claimed system to the manufacturer of only part of the system. Appellant NCR 

Corporation (“NCR”) appeals the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of no direct infringement. NCR asserts it could not directly infringe the claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,400,640 and 10,083,012 as a matter 

of law because NCR itself does not use the claimed system; 

rather, its merchants do. The district court found that the 

merchants’ use of the system could be attributed to NCR 

under our precedent involving divided infringement and 

principles of vicarious liability. For the following reasons, 

we reverse. 

BACKGROUND

I 

CloudofChange, LLC (“CloudofChange”) sued NCR, alleging infringement of the ’640 and ’012 patents (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The Asserted Patents 

share a specification and a priority date of February 5, 

2008. The shared specification discloses an online webbased point-of-sale-builder system that a non-expert business operator can use to assemble a point of sale (“POS”) 

system for managing their business operations. ’640 patent, col. 1 ll. 10–18. The specification explains that the 

conventional process of assembling a POS system required 

manually coding information, such as menu selections, and

defining the position and operation of touch screen keys 

and their database correspondence. Id. at col. 1 ll. 20–32. 

According to the specification, this process was time-consuming and prone to mistakes, only specially trained individuals could build or change POS screens, and store 

owners tended to retain out-of-date POS screens to avoid 

the editing process. Id. at col. 1 ll. 32–37. 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 3

The disclosed object of the Asserted Patents is “to provide an online, web-based point of sale builder system,” id.

at col. 2 ll. 3–4, that a non-expert business operator can use 

to assemble a POS system, which she could then use to 

manage her business. 

Figure 3 of the Asserted Patents, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment of the web-based POS system. Id.

Fig. 3; col. 3 ll. 38–49. As shown, “[t]here are N POS terminals (POS 1, POS 2, . . . POS N) in ‘Store’ 31 and in 

‘Store’ 32.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 37–40. “Each POS includes personal computer hardware and software,” and “[e]ach POS 

operates with a hardware/software connection 35 to the Internet.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 40–41, 43–44. Connection 35 allows 

each POS to communicate via Hypertext Transfer Protocol

(HTTP) with Back-Office (“BO”) software implemented on 

web servers 36. Id. at col. 4 ll. 16–19. “In addition, the BO 

software and data can be viewed from any store employee 

at any PC 33 who has Internet access 37 and a password.” 

Id. at col. 4 ll. 20–22.

Id. Fig. 3.

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2024
4 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

Claim 1 of the ’640 patent is illustrative of the asserted 

claims and recites: 

1. A web-based point of sale (POS) builder system 

comprising:

one or more point of sale terminals, that display 

POS screens,

an internet connection from said one or more point 

of sale terminals to a web server,

one or more local or remote POS workstations, and 

point of sale builder software that runs on said web 

server, wherein said local or remote workstations 

are utilized to build or edit said POS terminals in 

real time, from anywhere in the world and over the 

worldwide web, 

wherein said web servers are provided as a vendor 

subscription service wherein web server software 

resides and is hosted on said vendor’s remote servers and wherein subscriber company’s POS terminals access and repeatedly interact with said web 

server software from said vendor’s remote servers, 

in order to perform the subscriber’s desired terminal function, over a network, wherein the network 

comprises the Internet. 

Id. at col. 6 ll. 11–28 (emphasis added). The claims expressly require two entities: a vendor and a subscriber. 

The claims require the vendor’s remote servers to host the 

web server software while subscribers possess the POS terminals that access the web server software. 

II

CloudofChange accused NCR’s product, NCR Silver, of 

infringing several claims of the Asserted Patents. NCR Silver is a web-based POS solution designed for small and independent business owners. NCR Silver allows 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 4 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 5

merchants1 to edit POS menus, perform transactions, and

build their own POS screens.

Relevant here, a merchant’s use of NCR Silver requires

application software, POS hardware—such as a tablet or

personal computer—and an Internet connection to NCR’s 

backend servers. It is undisputed that NCR does not provide all the necessary components of the accused system. 

Specifically, (1) NCR contractually makes users responsible for supplying and maintaining an Internet connection, 

which is necessary to use NCR Silver; and (2) most users 

supply their own POS hardware. While most merchants 

supply the POS hardware, a small number of merchants 

obtain the hardware from NCR. Hardware products available through NCR include tablets, display screens, payment processors, and cash drawers. Merchants download 

NCR Silver software from an app store onto their POS 

hardware. 

III

In the district court, CloudofChange pursued a single

theory of infringement: that NCR directly used the 

claimed system by putting it into beneficial use under this 

court’s Centillion precedent. Centillion Data Sys., LLC 

v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). Specifically, CloudofChange asserted that NCR controls and benefits from each component recited in the 

claimed system and thus, under Centillion, uses the system. CloudofChange abandoned all other infringement 

theories, including induced infringement, contributory infringement, and direct infringement by importing, making, 

or selling the claimed system. The district court observed 

that CloudofChange’s “proof requirements are particularly 

1 NCR refers to its customers as merchants. Appellee’s Br. 10. This opinion refers to users, customers, and 

merchants interchangeably.

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 5 Filed: 12/18/2024
6 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

difficult” because CloudofChange “only asserts a direct infringement theory of ‘use’ against NCR” and “abandoned 

all other theories.” Cloudofchange, LLC v. NCR Corp., 

No. W-19-cv-00513-ADA, 2022 WL 15527756, at *5 

(W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2022). Under CloudofChange’s theory

“[i]t’s the defendant [NCR] that uses the Internet connection as part of the system,” and thus has “control and beneficial use of the system per Centillion.” J.A. 8195 (Pretrial 

Conference Tr. 45:16–18). 

At trial, CloudofChange’s technical expert, Gregory 

Crouse, testified that a customer-merchant downloads the 

NCR Silver software from an app store onto a POS terminal such as a tablet. He explained that a merchant can use 

NCR Silver, for example, to add new categories and add or 

edit buttons on the merchant’s POS screens. He also testified that using NCR Silver requires an Internet connection

between the merchant’s POS terminal and NCR’s backend 

server. Mr. Crouse concluded that use of NCR Silver infringed claim 1 of the ’640 patent, but he did not discuss 

how that use could be attributed to NCR, as opposed to the 

merchants or users of NCR Silver.

CloudofChange’s direct infringement theory turned on 

its argument that “NCR controls and benefits from its Silver system, including the requirement that customers who 

use the system supply an internet connection and network 

access to do so.” J.A. 11059. In support of this argument, 

CloudofChange pointed to Mr. Crouse’s testimony that a 

merchant who purchases NCR Silver must supply their 

own Internet access to use NCR Silver. CloudofChange 

also introduced into evidence NCR Silver’s Merchant 

Agreement, which directs the merchant to “maintain Internet access at your own expense” to use the service. 

J.A. 15490. For its part, NCR did not dispute that its Merchant Agreement makes Internet access the merchant’s responsibility; rather, NCR argued that this does not 

demonstrate control of the merchant’s use of NCR Silver. 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 6 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 7

On cross-examination, CloudofChange’s technical expert, Mr. Crouse, agreed that it is NCR’s customer-merchants who put NCR Silver into service and benefit from 

using it. J.A. 9049 (Trial Tr. 469:6–25); J.A. 9051 (Trial 

Tr. 471:17–25). The following exchange from NCR’s crossexamination of Mr. Crouse is illustrative:

Q. And so as part of the merchant agreement, NCR 

tells customers that they need to get their own Internet access, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And so it’s the consumers, the merchants 

that actually use NCR Silver, correct, in their retail 

operations? 

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. So you admit that a merchant who purchases the NCR Silver has to obtain their own Internet access, don’t you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. You admit that the merchants put NCR 

Silver into service, don’t you?

A. Yes, sir.

. . . . 

Q. You admit that merchants benefit from the use 

of NCR Silver, don’t you?

A. Yes, sir. I do.

J.A. 9049 (Trial Tr. 469:6–25). Citing this testimony, NCR 

timely moved for JMOL under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), arguing that no reasonable jury could find infringement.

After a four-day trial, the jury found that NCR directly

infringed all asserted claims, including claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 7 Filed: 12/18/2024
8 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

11, 12, and 13 of the ’640 patent and claims 1–4 of the 

’012 patent (collectively the “Asserted Claims”). The jury 

also found that NCR had not proven that the Asserted 

Claims were invalid. Finally, the jury found NCR’s infringement willful and awarded CloudofChange lump sum 

damages totaling $13.2 million. 

NCR then renewed its motion for JMOL under 

Rule 50(b) or, in the alternative, moved for a new trial under Rule 59. NCR’s renewed motion challenged the verdict

for five principal reasons: (1) the jury was erroneously instructed; (2) the district court erred by failing to interpret 

the claim term “builder”; (3) the Asserted Claims are invalid; (4) NCR does not use the claimed system (and thus 

does not infringe) as a matter of law; and (5) the jury’s 

award of damages under the entire market value rule was 

erroneous. 

Most relevant to this opinion, NCR argued it was entitled to JMOL of no infringement because CloudofChange 

did not offer substantial evidence that NCR (as opposed to 

its merchant customers) controls and benefits from every 

element of the claimed system as required by Centillion. 

Specifically, NCR argued that “[s]imilar to Qwest [the accused infringer in Centillion], NCR does not infringe the 

asserted system claim because ‘the entire system is not 

used until a customer loads software on its personal computer and processes data.’” J.A. 10781 (quoting Centillion, 

631 F.3d at 1287). NCR pointed to CloudofChange’s expert’s admission that NCR’s merchants, not NCR, put NCR 

Silver into service, control their use of NCR Silver, and 

benefit from the use of NCR Silver.

The district court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s infringement findings and denied NCR’s 

JMOL motion. In so holding, the court acknowledged that

NCR is liable for direct infringement for “use” only if it controls the system and obtains benefit from it. But the court 

explained that the “sticking point is whether 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 8 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 9

[CloudofChange] provided substantial evidence to support 

a theory of vicarious liability as to certain claim elements.” 

Cloudofchange, 2022 WL 15527756, at *5. 

The district court first held “that NCR, although it 

owns and operates the Back Office, does not put the accused system into service because it does not itself control 

the network.” Id. at *7. Instead, the court concluded that 

NCR’s merchants were analogous to the accused infringer’s 

customers in Centillion because the merchants benefit 

from and put the system into service by initiating demand 

for service at the front-end. Accordingly, the district court 

held that NCR’s customers—not NCR—“put the accused 

system into service by obtaining internet access” and 

“therefore, control this portion of the accused system.” Id.

The court then turned to whether the merchants’ use 

of NCR Silver could be attributed to NCR under Centillion

and Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 

797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam). Relying on the legal framework for direct infringement of 

method claims in Akamai, the court held that substantial 

evidence supported the jury’s finding that NCR directed or 

controlled its merchants’ use of the claimed system. In so 

holding, the court distinguished the facts in this case from 

those in Centillion, noting that in Centillion there was “no 

vicarious liability because ‘Qwest in no way direct[ed] its 

customers to perform nor d[id] its customers act as its 

agents.’” Cloudofchange, 2022 WL 15527756, at *7 (quoting Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1287). The court concluded that 

“[u]nlike Qwest in Centillion, NCR ‘directs its customers to 

perform’ by requiring its merchants to obtain and maintain 

internet access.” Id. at *8. To support its conclusion, the 

court pointed to the NCR Silver Merchant Agreement as 

evidence that “NCR ‘contracts with [merchants] to perform 

one or more’ of the claimed elements, i.e., internet or network access.” Id. (quoting Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1023) (alteration in original).

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 9 Filed: 12/18/2024
10 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

NCR appeals, arguing inter alia that the district court 

erred in denying JMOL of noninfringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION 

We review the grant or denial of a motion for JMOL 

under the law of the regional circuit. Kaufman v. Microsoft 

Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit reviews the grant or denial of JMOL de novo. Janvey 

v. Dillon Gage, Inc. of Dallas, 856 F.3d 377, 384 (5th Cir. 

2017). Under the Fifth Circuit’s standard for JMOL, a 

jury’s determination on infringement must be upheld unless it is not supported by substantial evidence. ACCO 

Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307, 

1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

I 

Because this case turns on the application of Centillion

and principles of vicarious liability, we begin by discussing 

our precedent and the relevant legal framework.

This court first addressed the issue of infringement for 

“use” of a system claim that includes elements in the possession of more than one actor in Centillion. We held that 

a party “uses” a system for purposes of infringement when 

it “control[s] the system as a whole and obtain[s] benefit 

from it.” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284. The control contemplated is not direct or physical control over each individual 

element of the system, but rather the ability to make the 

system elements “work for their patented purpose” and 

thus use “every element of the system by putting every element collectively into service.” Id.

At a high level, the claims at issue in Centillion involved a system for presenting information to an end user 

related to transaction records and summary reports from 

those records. Id. at 1281. The system claims included 

both a back-end system, maintained by the service provider, and a front-end system with a personal computer, 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 10 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 11

maintained by the end user. Id. The accused systems also 

included two parts: (i) Qwest’s back-office system that processed data and (ii) Qwest’s customers’ front-end client application with a personal computer for managing billing 

information. Id. The parties disputed whether it was 

Qwest or its customers that “used” the claimed system for 

purposes of direct infringement. 

We held that Qwest’s customers (not Qwest) used the 

claimed system as a matter of law. Id. at 1285. Because 

the customers chose when to put the system into service 

either by (1) creating queries, which in turn resulted in the 

back-end processing by Qwest; or (2) by subscribing to receive monthly electronic billing information from Qwest’s 

back-office system, we concluded the customer controlled 

the system. We reasoned that if the customer did not make 

the request or subscribe, then the back-end processing 

would not be put into service. Id. We further explained 

that this was “use” because “but for the customer’s actions, 

the entire system would never have been put into service”

and “the customer clearly benefit[ed] from this function.” 

Id.

We next considered whether Qwest was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers such that the customers’ use may be attributed to Qwest. We looked to our 

precedent on vicarious liability regarding both method

claims and system claims. Id. at 1286–87 (collecting 

cases). Applying this precedent, we held that because 

Qwest “in no way directs its customers to perform nor do 

its customers act as its agents,” Qwest was not vicariously 

liable for the actions of its customers. Id. at 1287. 

II

Turning to the facts of this case, we hold that the district court correctly determined that it is NCR’s merchants 

(not NCR) that use the claimed system. See id. at 1284. As 

the district court explained “NCR, although it owns and operates the Back Office, does not put the accused system into 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 11 Filed: 12/18/2024
12 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

service.” Cloudofchange, 2022 WL 15527756, at *7. Like 

the customers in Centillion, NCR’s merchants put the system into service because they initiate at the POS terminal 

a demand for service (for example, building or editing a 

POS) and benefit from the back end providing that service. 

NCR’s merchants therefore “control the system as a whole 

and obtain benefit from it.” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284. 

In other words, the merchants make the system parts 

“work for their patented purpose,” and thus use “every element of the system by putting every element collectively 

into service.” Id.

That NCR occasionally provides the POS hardware 

used by the customer-merchants does not change our view. 

J.A. 8195–96. CloudofChange admitted that, in most 

cases, NCR’s merchants provide their own hardware. And 

CloudofChange did not present different infringement arguments based on whether NCR merely provided the software or provided both the POS hardware and the software. 

Because in most cases NCR provides only the software to 

the merchant and CloudofChange forfeited any argument 

for those few circumstances where NCR provides the POS 

hardware, we see little daylight between this case and Centillion. Moreover, as CloudofChange’s own expert agreed, 

it is NCR’s merchants who put NCR Silver into service, 

control their own use of NCR Silver, and benefit from the 

use of NCR Silver.

CloudofChange next argues that, in fact, NCR “benefits 

from” the entire NCR Silver system from the monthly subscription fee, product improvements through testing and 

evaluation, product ideas, transaction data, revenues from 

third-party products and services, marketing rights associated with the merchant’s use, and advertising. Appellee’s 

Br. 26–27. But these are not the kind of benefits on which 

Centillion focuses. See, e.g., Intell. Ventures I LLC 

v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 

2017) (rejecting notion that an accused infringer need only 

derive a benefit from a claimed component of the claimed 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 12 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 13

system to directly infringe). Centillion asks whether a 

party uses the entire claimed system by putting that system to use and receiving the benefit (i.e., the recited purpose or result) of that use. Here, we agree with the district 

court that it is NCR’s merchants, not NCR, who initiate the 

use of NCR Silver at the POS terminals and benefit from 

the POS builder software at the web server building or editing the POS terminals. 

III

We now turn to whether NCR is vicariously liable for 

its merchant-customers’ use of the claimed system. As the 

district court correctly recognized, Centillion’s analysis did

not end after concluding that Qwest’s customers used the 

claimed invention. Instead, we considered whether “Qwest 

is vicariously liable for the actions of its customers such 

that ‘use’ by the customers may be attributed to Qwest.” 

Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1286. Answering this question, we 

held that because Qwest “in no way directs its customers 

to perform nor do its customers act as its agents,” Qwest 

was not vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. 

Id. at 1287. In so holding, we emphasized that while Qwest 

provided application software and technical assistance, it 

was entirely the decision of the customer whether to install 

and operate the software on its personal computer data 

processing means. Id.

So too here. NCR does not direct or control its merchants to subscribe to the NCR Silver system, download 

the NCR Silver app on their POS terminals, or put the NCR 

Silver system into use by initiating action at the POS terminals to cause the NCR Silver software to modify its POS 

terminals. NCR’s merchants take these actions of their 

own accord. That NCR’s Merchant Agreement makes merchants responsible for obtaining and maintaining Internet 

access does not equate to contractually obligating merchants put the entire accused NCR Silver system into use. 

We thus conclude as a matter of law that NCR does not 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 13 Filed: 12/18/2024
14 CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION

direct or control its merchants’ use of the claimed system, 

nor do its merchants act as NCR’s agents.

In concluding otherwise, the district court erred by focusing its direction or control analysis on one element of 

the system—Internet access. Because NCR’s Merchant 

Agreement makes merchants responsible for obtaining and 

maintaining Internet access, the district court determined

“NCR ‘contracts with [merchants] to perform one or more’ 

of the claimed elements.” Cloudofchange, 2022 WL 

15527756, at *8 (alteration in original) (quoting Akamai, 

797 F.3d at 1023). Based on this conclusion, the district 

court held that NCR directed or controlled its merchantcustomers’ use of the claimed system. But, in the context 

of this case, directing the merchants to perform one element of a system claim is not the proper test for analyzing 

vicarious liability for use of a system claim.

Specifically, the district court’s analysis conflates use 

of a method claim (which was at issue in Akamai) with use 

of a system claim (which was at issue in Centillion). “Under section 271(a), the concept of ‘use’ of a patented method 

or process is fundamentally different from the use of a patented system or device.” NTP, Inc. v. Rsch. In Motion, 

Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he use of a 

process necessarily involves doing or performing each of 

the steps recited,” while the “use of a system as a whole” 

involves putting that entire system to use and benefitting 

from it. Id. at 1318.

In Akamai, the accused infringer, Limelight, performed every step of the claimed method except one, which 

was performed by its customer. Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1024. 

It was in this unique context that this court focused on one 

claim element (the one that Limelight itself did not perform) and considered whether Limelight directed or controlled its customers’ performance of this claim step. Id.

at 1024. After answering this question in the affirmative, 

the court held that Limelight was vicariously liable for the 

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 14 Filed: 12/18/2024
CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION 15

performance of all the steps of the method claim because it 

either performed or directed or controlled the performance 

of all of the claim elements. Id. at 1024–25.

Applying the vicarious liability principles from Akamai

to this case, the appropriate question is whether NCR directed or controlled or should otherwise be vicariously liable for its customers’ use of the system claim. Specifically, 

the issue is whether NCR directed or controlled its merchant-customer’s actions in putting the entire claimed system to service to build or edit POS systems. As the 

contractual obligation to supply an Internet connection 

does not amount to direction or control of a merchant’s use 

of the claimed system to build POS systems, we hold that 

NCR is not vicariously liable for that infringing use. 

CONCLUSION

Because we conclude the district court erred in denying 

JMOL of no infringement, we do not reach the other issues 

presented on appeal.2 For the reasons discussed above, we 

reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL and vacate the 

jury verdict.3 

REVERSED

2 At oral argument, NCR contingently abandoned its 

counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity should 

this court reverse the infringement verdict. Oral Arg. 

at 8:03–8:57, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23-1111_06042024.mp3. Accordingly, we do 

not reach the issue of invalidity.

3 In light of our disposition on the merits, we deny as 

moot Appellant NCR’s Renewed Motion Regarding IPR Decisions asking us to take judicial notice of inter partes review decisions related to the Asserted Patents (ECF 

No. 67).

Case: 23-1111 Document: 78 Page: 15 Filed: 12/18/2024