Case: 20-2240 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2022

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2 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, ar- gued 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 Pa- tent 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: 3 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). Ac- cordingly, 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 chal- lenging 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 is- sue here because Qualcomm disclaimed claim 9. Appel- lant’s Br. 15 n.2; J.A. 3049–52.