NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. IPR2019-

00048, 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 Document: 95 Page: 1 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, 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 Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2022
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). 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.

1 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.

Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2022