Xr Communications, LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc.

Case: 22-1785 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DBA VIVATO

TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff-Appellant v.

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., BELKIN

INTERNATIONAL, INC., NEWO CORPORATION, ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., NETGEAR, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., UBIQUITI INC., AKA UBIQUITINETWORKS, INC., ARUBA NETWORKS

LLC, Defendants

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2022-1785, 2022-1787, 2022-1789, 2022-1790, 2022-1791,

2022-1792 ______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Nos. 2:17-cv-02948-AG- JCG, 2:17-cv-02951-AG-JCG, 2:17-cv-02953-AG-JCG, 8:17- cv-00596-DOC-JDE, Judge David O. Carter.

______________________

Case: 22-1785 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2023 2 XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.

Decided: May 18, 2023 ______________________

MARC A. FENSTER, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MINNA CHAN, BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, REZA MIRZAIE, JAMES PICKENS.

JONATHAN K. WALDROP, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for defendants-appellees ASUS Com- puter International, Asustek Computer, Inc. Also repre- sented by MARCUS BARBER, JOHN DOWNING.

SARAH E. PIEPMEIER, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. Also repre- sented by RYAN BRODIE HAWKINS, San Diego, CA.

DANIEL W. RICHARDS, Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, for defendant-appellee Extreme Networks, Inc. Also represented by ANDREW N. THOMASES.

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies (“Vivato”) appeals a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“C.D. Cal. District Court”) holding claims 1–9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,231 invalid as indefinite. The C.D. Cal. District Court based its judgment on the collateral-estoppel effect of a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“N.D. Cal. District Court”)—the lat- ter of which is the subject of companion appeals Nos. 22-1125 and 22-1141 (as consolidated, the “companion ap- peal”).

Case: 22-1785 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2023 XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC. 3

Today we issued an opinion and judgment in the com- panion appeal affirming the N.D. Cal. District Court’s judg- ment. There is no dispute that our affirmance in the companion appeal compels affirming in this appeal. Ac- cordingly, having affirmed in the companion appeal, we likewise affirm in this appeal.

AFFIRMED