Case: 17-1748 Page:1_Filed: 05/07/2018Document: 83-1 (1 of 5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`JUDGMENT WITHOUT OPINION
`
`JUDGMENT ENTERED: 05/07/2018
`
`The judgmentof the court in your case was entered today pursuant to Rule 36. This Court affirmed the judgment
`or decision that was appealed. Noneofthe relief sought in the appeal was granted. No opinion accompanied the
`judgment. The mandatewill be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answersare those frequently asked and answeredbythe Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed against the appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provideda bill of costs form and an instruction sheet withthis notice.
`
`The parties are encouragedto stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absenceof a
`timely filed objection.
`
`Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to
`the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties’ written settlement
`agreements. In cases betweenprivate parties, payment should be madeto counselfor the party awarded costsor,if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's Opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same wayascosts.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed to FRAP 34(g) which states that the clerk may
`destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandateis issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: Dan L. Bagatell
`Matthew Cook Bernstein
`Evan Skinner Day
`James R. Foley
`Robert Greenspoon
`Timothy M. McCarthy
`John Steven Paniaguas
`
`17-1748, -1750, -1805, -1806, -1824: Advanced Audio Devices, LLC v. HTC Corporation
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case Nos. IPR2014-01155, 1PR2014-01154, IPR2014-01156, IPR2014-
`01157, IPR2014-01158
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1748
`
`Document: 83-2
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`(2 of 5)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Gnited States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,INC.,
`Appellees
`
`2017-1748, 2017-1750, 2017-1805, 2017-1806, 2017-1824
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
`mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
`IPR2014-01154,
`IPR2014-01155,
`IPR2014-01156,
`IPR2014-01157, IPR2014-01158.
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`JOHN STEVEN PANIAGUAS, Clark Hill PLC, Chicago,
`IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES R.
`FOLEY, TIMOTHY M. MCCARTHY; ROBERT GREENSPOON,
`Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, IL.
`
`MATTHEW COOK BERNSTEIN, Perkins Coie, LLP, San
`Diego, CA, argued for appellees. Also represented by
`EVAN SKINNER DAY; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1748 Page:2_Filed: 05/07/2018Document: 83-2 (3 of 5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIS CAUSE having been heard andconsidered,it is
`
`ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
`
`PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit
`Judges).
`
`AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir. R. 36.
`
`ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
`
`May7, 2018
`Date
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1748
`
`Document: 83-3
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`(4 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Questions and Answers
`
`Petitions for Rehearing (Fed. Cir. R. 40)
`and
`Petitions for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc(Fed. Cir. R. 35)
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`A. Petitions for panel rehearing are rarely successful
`because they mostoften fail to articulate sufficient grounds
`upon whichto grant them. For example, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used to reargue issues already
`briefed and orally argued; if a party failed to persuade the
`court on anissuein the first instance, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used as an attempt to get a second
`“bite at the apple.” This is especially so when the court has
`entered a judgmentof affirmance without opinion under
`Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such dispositions are enteredif the court
`determines the judgmentofthe trial court is based on
`findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence
`supporting the jury verdict is sufficient, the record supports
`the trial court's ruling, the decision of the administrative
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standard
`of review, or the judgment or decision is without an error of
`law.
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for hearing or rehearing en banc
`appropriate?
`
`A. En banc decisions are extraordinary occurrences. To
`properly answerthe question, one mustfirst understand the
`responsibility of a three-judge merits panel of the court. The
`panelis charged with deciding individual appeals according
`to the law of the circuit as established in the court's
`precedential opinions. While each merits panelis
`empowered to enter precedential opinions, the ultimate
`duty of the court en bancis to set forth the law of the
`Federal Circuit, which merit panels are obliged to follow.
`
`Thus, as a usual prerequisite, a merits panel of the court
`must have entered a precedential opinion in support ofits
`judgmentfor a suggestion for rehearing en banc to be
`appropriate. In addition, the party seeking rehearing en
`banc must show that either the merits panel hasfailed to
`follow identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or
`
`Federal Circuit precedential opinions or that the merits
`panel has followed circuit precedent, which the party seeks
`to have overruled by the court en banc.
`
`Q. Howfrequently are petitions for rehearing granted by
`merits panels or petitions for rehearing en banc accepted
`by the court?
`
`A. The data regarding petitions for rehearing since 1982
`showsthat merits panels granted somerelief in only three
`percentof the more than 1900 petitionsfiled. The relief
`granted usually involved only minor corrections of factual
`misstatements, rarely resulting in a change of outcomein
`the decision.
`
`En banc petitions were accepted less frequently, in only 16
`of more than 1100 requests. Historically, the court itself
`initiated en banc review in more than half (21 of 37) of the
`very few appeals decided en banc since 1982. This sua
`sponte, en bancreview is a by-productof the court’s
`practice of circulating every precedential panel decision to
`all the judges of the Federal Circuit before it is published.
`No countis kept of sua sponte, en banc polls that fail to
`carry enough judges, but one of the reasonsthat virtually
`all of the more than 1100 petitions madebythe parties
`since 1982 have been declinedis that the court itself has
`already implicitly approved the precedential opinions before
`they are filed by the merits panel.
`
`Q. Is it necessary to havefiled either of these petitions
`before filing a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme
`Court?
`
`A. No.All that is neededis a final judgment of the Court of
`Appeals. As a matterof interest, very few petitions for
`certiorari from Federal Circuit decisions are granted. Since
`1982, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in only
`31 appeals heard in the Federal Circuit. Almost 1000
`petitions for certiorari have beenfiled in that period.
`
`October 20, 2016
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1748
`
`Document: 83-4
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`(5 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`INFORMATION SHEET
`
`FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from judgments
`of the Federal Circuit. You mustfile a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court
`will grant only when there are compelling reasons. (See Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme
`Court of the United States, hereinafter called Rules.)
`
`Time, Thepetition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 daysof the
`entry ofjudgmentin this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for rehearing.
`The judgmentis entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in yourcase. [The
`time does not run from the issuance of the mandate, which has no effect on the right to petition. ]
`(See Rule 13 of the Rules.)
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an
`affidavit in support thereof must accompanythe petition. (See Rules 38 and 39.)
`
`Authorized Filer, The petition must be filed by a memberof the bar of the Supreme Court ofthe
`United States or by the petitioner representing himself or herself.
`
`Formatof a Petition. ‘he Rules are very specific about the order of the required information
`and should be consulted before you start drafting your petition. (See Rule 14.) Rules 33 and 34
`should be consulted regarding type size and font, paper size, paper weight, margins, page limits,
`cover, etc.
`
`Numberof Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is proceeding in
`forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies ofthe petition for writ of certiorari and
`of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rule 12.)
`
`Whereto File. You mustfile your documents at the Supreme Court.
`
`Clerk
`Supreme Court of the United States
`1 First Street, NE
`Washington, DC 20543
`(202) 479-3000
`
`No documentsare filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no information to
`the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
`
`Access to the Rules. The current rules can be found in Title 28 of the United States Code
`Annotated and other legal publications available in many public libraries.
`
`Revised December16, 1999
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1748
`
`Document:85
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 06/14/2018
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`2017-1748, 2017-1750, 2017-1805, 2017-1806, 2017-1824
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,INC.,
`Appellees
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
`IPR2014-01155, IPR2014-01154, IPR2014-01156, IPR2014-01157, IPR2014-01158, Administrative Patent
`Judge Christopher L. Crumbley, Administrative Patent Judge Georgianna W. Braden, Administrative
`Patent Judge Scott A. Daniels.
`
`MANDATE
`
`In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered May 7, 2018, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the
`Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
`
`Costs in the amount of $414.16 were determined and taxed against the appellant.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: Dan L. Bagatell
`Matthew Cook Bernstein
`Evan Skinner Day
`JamesR. Foley
`Robert Greenspoon
`Timothy M. McCarthy
`John Steven Paniaguas
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`