Fullview, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc.

Case: 26-121 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ FULLVIEW, INC., Plaintiff-Petitioner v. POLYCOM, INC., Defendant-Respondent ______________________ 2026-121 ______________________ On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv- 00510-EMC, Judge Edward M. Chen. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), FullView, Inc. seeks permission to appeal orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that, inter alia, (1) determined some of the asserted patent claims are Case: 26-121 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2026

2 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC. invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and (2) excluded FullView’s expert testimony on damages. The district court certified the orders pursuant to § 1292(b).

Under § 1292(b), the Northern District of California may certify that an order that is not otherwise immediately appealable is one involving a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opin- ion and for which an immediate appeal may materially ad- vance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Ultimately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal an interloc- utory order. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat.

Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we decline to grant permission to appeal under § 1292(b).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for permission to appeal is denied.

FOR THE COURT

April 16, 2026 Date