N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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 No s . IPR2019

- 00048, IPR2019

- 00049.

______________________ Decided: March 24, 2022

______________________ G REGORY H. L ANTIER , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Do rr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2022INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 2

represented by D AVID L ANGDON C AVANAUGH , C LAIRE H YUNGYO C HUNG , T HOMAS S AUNDERS ; B ENJAMIN S. F ERNANDEZ , Denver, CO; J AMES M. L YONS , Boston, MA.

M AUREEN 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. C RAVEN , T HOMAS W. K RAUSE , F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

.
I SRAEL S ASHA M AYERGOYZ , Jo nes Day, Chicago, IL, argued for cross

- appellant. Also represented by T HOMAS W. R ITCHIE ; R OBERT B REETZ , D AVID B. C OCHRAN , J OSEPH M. S AUER , Cleveland, OH; K ELLY H OLT , New York, NY; J ENNIFER L. S WIZE , Washington, DC.

______________________ Before N EWMAN , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. R EYNA , Circuit Judge

. Appellant I ntel Corporation appeals two final written decision s 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 a re 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: 03/24/2022INTEL 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 appeal s 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 asobvious and consequently dismissing other appeals challenging the same cl aims). Intel’s appeals of IPR2019

- 0004 8 and IPR2019

- 00049
, and Qualcomm’s cross

- appeal s , are hereby dismissed as moot

. DISMISSED
C OSTS
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