Court Opinion

ID: 9892054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:00:42.682349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:02.624622
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-2593   Document: 112     Page: 1   Filed: 10/20/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                     VIRNETX INC.,
                        Appellant

                             v.

   KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
   COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
     AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
       PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
                   Intervenor
             ______________________

                        2017-2593
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-
 00693.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 20, 2023
                 ______________________

    DANIEL ZEILBERGER, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by STEPHEN
 BLAKE KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR
 VICTOR TIMOFEYEV.

    BRIAN RACILLA, Office of the Solicitor, United States
 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
Case: 17-2593    Document: 112     Page: 2    Filed: 10/20/2023

 2                                       VIRNETX INC. v. VIDAL

 intervenor. Also represented by MICHAEL S. FORMAN,
 DANIEL KAZHDAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA
 YASMEEN RASHEED.
                ______________________

     Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Appellant VirnetX Inc. (VirnetX) seeks review of a de-
 cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding
 that claims 1–2, 5–6, 15–16, 27, 33, 36–37, 39–40, 51, 57,
 and 60 of VirnetX’s U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 (’504 patent)
 are unpatentable. VirnetX challenges the Board’s determi-
 nation that dependent claim 5 is unpatentable and argues
 that the Board’s decision as to the other claims are moot in
 view of our affirmance of rejections of claims 36–37, 39–40,
 51, 57, and 60 in VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 931 F.3d 1363
 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and our affirmance of rejections of claims
 1–2, 6, 15–16, 27, and 33 in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
 Inc., 776 F. App’x 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At oral argument,
 counsel for VirnetX further acknowledged that if we affirm
 in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 22-2234, argued
 the same day as this case, this case would be entirely moot.
     We have today affirmed the Board’s decision in the co-
 pending Cisco appeal. See VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
 Inc., No. 22-2234, slip op. 7, ––– F. App’x –––, ––– (Fed.
 Cir. Oct. 20, 2023). This case is therefore moot, and the
 appeal will be dismissed. We decline to vacate the Board’s
 decision in this case as part of our judgment dismissing this
 appeal, as VirnetX has not offered any reason as to why the
 unreviewed Board decision would require the discretionary
 remedy of vacatur. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner
 Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994); Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm
 Inc., 17 F.4th 1131, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also LSI
 Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 604 F. App’x 924, 930
 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that the decision whether to vacate
 a judgment when the case becomes moot by happenstance
Case: 17-2593    Document: 112     Page: 3   Filed: 10/20/2023

 VIRNETX INC. v. VIDAL                                     3

 while on appeal is a matter “not of constitutional necessity
 but of remedial discretion”).
                         DISMISSED