Court Opinion

ID: 9892056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:00:43.777332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:03.020930
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-1671   Document: 120     Page: 1   Filed: 10/20/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                     VIRNETX INC.,
                        Appellant

                             v.

                 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
                        Appellee

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

                        2019-1671
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,679.
                   ______________________

                Decided: October 20, 2023
                 ______________________

     IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS,
 DANIEL ZEILBERGER.
Case: 19-1671    Document: 120     Page: 2    Filed: 10/20/2023

 2                         VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

     THEODORE M. FOSTER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Den-
 ver, CO, argued for appellee. Also represented by DEBRA
 JANECE MCCOMAS, DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Dallas, TX.

     MELISSA N. PATTERSON, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
 United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
 intervenor. Also represented by COURTNEY DIXON, SCOTT
 R. MCINTOSH; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, BRIAN RACILLA,
 FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor,
 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,
 VA.
                 ______________________

     Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Appellant VirnetX Inc. seeks review of a decision of the
 Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that various claims
 of VirnetX’s U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 are invalid for obvi-
 ousness and anticipation.
     This appeal has been overtaken by events. A decision
 by this court earlier this year in VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove
 Partners Master Fund, Ltd., No. 2020-2271, 2023 WL
 2708975 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2023), upheld the decision of
 the Board in an inter partes review holding that various
 claims of the ’135 patent were invalid. VirnetX acknowl-
 edges that the Mangrove Partners decision renders moot
 VirnetX’s arguments as to claims 1, 3–4, and 7–8 of the ’135
 patent. Consequently, the only claim of the ’135 patent still
 at issue in this case at the time of the oral argument was
 claim 18. And counsel for VirnetX acknowledged that if
 claim 18 were invalidated in the co-pending case of VirnetX
 Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1523, 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 Apple appeal. This case is therefore moot, and the
 appeal will be dismissed.
Case: 19-1671    Document: 120         Page: 3   Filed: 10/20/2023

 VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.                          3

     Because there has been no suggestion that the exist-
 ence of the unreviewed Board decision in this case will
 cause unfair prejudice to VirnetX or any other party, we
 decline to vacate that decision as part of our judgment dis-
 missing this appeal. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner
 Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994). In particular, this is not a
 case in which an appellant has been “frustrated by the va-
 garies of circumstance” or the “unilateral action” of the ap-
 pellee such that the appellant “ought not in fairness be
 forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” Apple Inc. v. Qual-
 comm Inc., 17 F.4th 1131, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting
 Bonner Mall, 513 U.S. at 25); see also LSI Corp. v. U.S. Int’l
 Trade Comm’n, 604 F. App’x 924, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The
 decision whether to vacate a judgment when the case be-
 comes moot by happenstance while on appeal is a matter
 “not of constitutional necessity but of remedial discre-
 tion.”).
                        DISMISSED