NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.
2Decided: 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 Computer International, Asustek Computer, Inc. Also represented by MARCUS BARBER, JOHN DOWNING. SARAH E. PIEPMEIER, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. Also represented 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.
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 latter of which is the subject of companion appeals Nos. 22-1125 and 22-1141 (as consolidated, the “companion appeal”).
3Today we issued an opinion and judgment in the companion appeal affirming the N.D. Cal. District Court’s judgment. There is no dispute that our affirmance in the companion appeal compels affirming in this appeal. Accordingly, having affirmed in the companion appeal, we likewise affirm in this appeal.