Court Opinion

ID: 3188921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-25 15:01:26.090192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:45.110791
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC,
                Appellant

                           v.

  CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.,
                   Appellee
            ______________________

                 2015-1743, 2015-1744
                ______________________

   Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
IPR2014-00097, IPR2014-00098.
                ______________________

               Decided: March 25, 2016
               ______________________

   MICHAEL MARTIN MURRAY, Winston & Strawn LLP,
New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by
MICHAEL JOHN SCHEER, Los Angeles, CA; GEOFFREY P.
EATON, Washington, DC.

    STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst &
Manbeck, P.C, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also
represented by JOSEPH A. HYNDS, BRIAN ANDREW
TOLLEFSON.
               ______________________
2      INT’L SECURITIES EXCH.   v. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCH.

    Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
     In this appeal, International Securities Exchange,
LLC (“ISE”) challenges the determination of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in inter partes
review proceedings involving U.S. Patent Nos. 7,356,498
(“the ’498 patent”) (IPR2014-00097) and 7,980,457 (“the
’457 patent”) (IPR2014-00098). The Board found that ISE
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
challenged claims of the ’498 and ’457 patents are un-
patentable as either anticipated, obvious, or both, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In light of our
decision in Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs.
Exch., Case Nos. 2015-1728, -1729, and -1730, issued
contemporaneously herewith, affirming the Board’s
conclusion that both patents address unpatentable subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we find this companion
case moot. We dismiss the appeal and vacate the Board’s
decisions.
                        DISMISSED