Case: 21-2127 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
INTEL CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
XMTT, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2021-2127
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
00145.
______________________
Decided: April 19, 2022
______________________
COSMIN MAIER, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY, argued
for appellant. Also represented by PAUL A. BONDOR, JOHN
M. DESMARAIS, LINDSEY MILLER.
ANTHONY ROWLES, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles,
CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by MORGAN
CHU, BENJAMIN W. HATTENBACH, HONG ANNITA ZHONG.
______________________
Case: 21-2127 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 04/19/2022
2 INTEL CORPORATION v. XMTT, INC.
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and HUGHES,
Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Intel Corporation appeals from an inter partes review
final written decision. See Intel Corp. v. XMTT, Inc., No.
IPR2020-00145,
2021 WL 1895938 (P.T.A.B. May 11, 2021)
(Board Decision). In that decision, the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board held that no claim of
U.S. Patent No.
7,707,388 would have been obvious over Nakaya 1 in combi-
nation with other references. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
Intel is judicially estopped from raising its claim con-
struction argument. The Board adopted the claim con-
struction for which Intel advocated. Board Decision,
2021
WL 1895938, at *4–5. Yet, Intel now changes its position
and advocates for a claim construction that is clearly incon-
sistent with its position before the Board. Compare Appel-
lant’s Br. 36–37, with J.A. 685–86. Intel is judicially
estopped from raising this argument. We need not consider
Intel’s argument that Nakaya discloses the disputed claim
limitations under its new construction.
Further, the Board did not violate Intel’s due process
rights. Even if Intel was entitled to an opportunity to re-
spond to the Board’s claim construction, the Board pro-
vided one. It allowed supplemental briefing for the express
purpose of addressing its proposed claim construction. J.A.
591–95. Thus, there was no due process violation.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs to XMTT.
1
U.S. Patent No. 5,978,830.
