Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Cisco Sys. v. TQ Delta, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

July 10, 2019, Decided

2018-1806, 2018-1917

Opinion

 [*1360]  Wallach, Circuit Judge.

The instant appeal is the companion to concurrently issuing appeal No. 2018-1799, where we determined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of Appellee TQ Delta, LLC's ("TQ Delta") U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 ("the '404 patent") are unpatentable as obvious over the same combination of prior  [*1361]  art analyzed in this appeal. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 2018-1799, 929 F.3d 1350, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406, *22 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019). We presume familiarity with our opinion in related appeal, which recites the same technology and illustrative claim as in the instant appeal, and we, therefore, recite only that [**2]  which is necessary to understand the issues on appeal here. See TQ Delta, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406 at *3,

Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") sought inter partes review ("IPR") with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") of claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the '404 patent. Appellant ARRIS Group, Inc. ("Arris") also filed a petition for IPR of claims 1-20 of the '404 patent. In both the Cisco and Arris (collectively, "Appellants") IPRs, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued final written decisions finding, inter alia, that the claims were not unpatentable over a combination of the prior art. See Arris Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01160, 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 13172, 2017 WL 6398317, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017); ARRIS Grp., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01160, 2018 WL 1176779, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018) (denying rehearing); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC., IPR No. 2016-01466 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1-16).

Appellants appeal. Because we have already determined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the '404 patent would have been obvious, see TQ Delta, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406 at *21, the issue of patentability of these claims is mooted in this appeal, see ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., 856 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (] "A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the [**3]  outcome." (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S. Ct. 721, 184 L. Ed. 2d 553 (2013))). The remaining claims being challenged on appeal are the patentability of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 ("the Challenged Claims"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We vacate and remand.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

928 F.3d 1359 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20404 **; 2019 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 253755; 2019 WL 2997928

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee;ARRIS GROUP, INC., Appellant v. TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellee

Subsequent History: Related proceeding at TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406 (Fed. Cir., July 10, 2019)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-01466.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-01160.

Disposition: VACATED AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

signal, synchronization, frame, transceiver, specification, patent, transmitter, clock, receiver, frequency, full power, embodiment, counter, recite

Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Case or Controversy, Mootness, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Substantial Evidence, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Claims & Specifications, Specifications, Description Requirement, Claim Interpretation, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence