Federal Circuit Appeal 21-2349: Computer Graphics Lighting Patents — 487-Day Appeal
This Federal Circuit appeal concerned two patents — US6362822B1 and US7061488B2 — covering lighting and shadowing methods for computer graphic simulations. The recorded basis of termination is Appeal Dismissed; the docket order states the cause was AFFIRMED. The appeal ran 487 days from filing to closure.
Two Computer Graphics Patents at the Federal Circuit: What the Record Shows
Appeal No. 21-2349 was filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 24 September 2021 and closed on 24 January 2023, a span of 487 days. The appeal arose from an infringement action involving two patents: US6362822B1 and US7061488B2, both directed to lighting and shadowing methods and arrangements for use in computer graphic simulations — a foundational technology domain for gaming, visual effects, and real-time rendering pipelines.
The recorded basis of termination for this appeal is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order, however, states: 'THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.' These two characterisations are presented as recorded in the available public record; the specific terms and procedural posture that explain the difference between them are not disclosed in the available record.
Party names, law firms, and agent details are not disclosed in the available record, which limits further analysis of litigation strategy or commercial drivers. The 487-day duration is consistent with standard Federal Circuit briefing and argument schedules. What specific claims were contested, and whether any claim construction issues drove the outcome, is not determinable from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 487 days
487 days from filing to closure — consistent with a moderately contested Federal Circuit appeal
US6362822B1 & US7061488B2 — Lighting and Shadowing for Computer Graphics
Any organisation developing, licensing, or commercialising computer graphic simulation technology — including real-time rendering engines, GPU shader pipelines, VR/AR environments, or cinematic visual effects tools — should assess exposure to US6362822B1 and US7061488B2. Because neither patent was invalidated or definitively addressed on the merits in this Federal Circuit proceeding, their claims remain enforceable on the basis of the available record. The risk is particularly acute for products launched after the original filing dates that incorporate comparable lighting or shadowing computation methods.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order in Appeal No. 21-2349 states 'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED,' indicating the Federal Circuit panel found no reversible error in the decision below on the infringement action. The recorded basis of termination, however, is 'Appeal Dismissed.' Both are reported as they appear in the available record; the specific procedural basis reconciling these two characterisations is not disclosed.
Federal Circuit appeal dismissed: what the recorded outcome means for both parties
Appeal dismissed at Federal Circuit: no merits ruling on record
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed,' indicating the Federal Circuit ended this appeal without a full merits adjudication in the termination record. Separately, the docket order states AFFIRMED. An appeal dismissal at this level typically ends the appellate proceeding without disturbing — or formally addressing — the lower court's decision on the merits. The specific procedural basis for the dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
Procedural closurePatents US6362822B1 and US7061488B2 remain in their pre-appeal posture
Where an appeal is dismissed without a merits ruling, the lower court's decision is left undisturbed. For the patent holder, this suggests the asserted lighting and shadowing patents are not invalidated or narrowed by this appellate proceeding. However, because the specific terms of the dismissal are not disclosed, the precise enforceability implications for these patents cannot be fully characterised from the public record.
Patent status unclearAppellant loses appellate platform without merits adjudication
A dismissed appeal typically forecloses the appellant's ability to seek Federal Circuit review on the same grounds at this level. Without a merits ruling, the appellant receives no substantive finding in its favour. Future challenge routes — such as inter partes review at the USPTO or a subsequent district court action on different grounds — may remain theoretically available, but this appeal provides no appellate precedent to rely upon.
Appellate options narrowedLighting and shadowing patent risk persists for the graphics sector
Because no merits ruling was issued on the validity or scope of US6362822B1 or US7061488B2, companies operating in the computer graphics simulation space — including real-time rendering, gaming engines, and visual effects pipelines — cannot draw definitive conclusions about these patents' enforceability from this appeal alone. Competitors and product teams should treat these patents as unresolved and consider FTO analysis accordingly.
FTO review advisedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plaintiff | Individual | Plaintiff in Federal Circuit appeal — holder of US6362822B1 and US7061488B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Defendant in Federal Circuit appeal concerning computer graphic simulation patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the computer graphics simulation patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the technologies and parties in Federal Circuit Appeal No. 21-2349 — lighting, shadowing, and simulation methods for computer graphics.
Explore the patent family around US6362822B1 and US7061488B2
Both asserted patents originate from late-1990s application filings (US09/268078 and US10/010776). Portfolio mapping around these application numbers may surface continuation, divisional, or CIP applications that extend protection into more recent rendering techniques. Identifying the full family scope is essential for any FTO or licensing strategy in this domain.
Patent family mappingFiling trends in real-time lighting and shadow rendering methods
The computer graphics simulation space has seen significant patent filing activity as GPU capabilities have expanded — from rasterisation-era techniques to ray tracing and neural rendering. Analysing filing trends from 2010 to present around lighting simulation and shadow computation reveals which assignees are building dominant positions and where white space exists for new innovation.
Filing trend analysisDefendant's patent activity in computer graphics and rendering
Because party names are not disclosed in the available record, a broader competitive scan of assignees active in computer graphics simulation patents — including GPU manufacturers, game engine developers, and visual effects software vendors — can identify which organisations hold defensive or offensive portfolios in the lighting and shadowing method space relevant to this appeal.
Competitive landscapeAdjacent innovation opportunities near shadowing and lighting simulation
Emerging areas such as neural radiance fields (NeRF), AI-driven denoising, and real-time global illumination represent adjacencies to the claim space of the asserted patents. A white-space analysis around these techniques relative to the original patent claim boundaries may reveal filing opportunities or design-around strategies for R&D teams building next-generation rendering pipelines.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit appeals involving computer graphics and rendering patents
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving computer graphics simulation, lighting, shadowing, and real-time rendering patents with comparable claim structures or litigation histories.
What this appeal signals for the computer graphics IP landscape
Two foundational graphics simulation patents closed at the Federal Circuit without a public merits ruling — signalling unresolved risk for the sector.
No merits ruling means patent enforceability remains an open question
The Appeal Dismissed basis of termination, combined with a docket order stating AFFIRMED, leaves the downstream enforceability of these lighting and shadowing patents ambiguous in the public record. Companies building on or near these technologies should not assume either patent has been definitively invalidated or upheld by this proceeding.
Computer graphics lighting patents remain an active enforcement vector
Patents covering real-time lighting, shadowing, and simulation methods are increasingly relevant as GPU-accelerated rendering and game engine technology proliferate. The assertion of US6362822B1 and US7061488B2 in a Federal Circuit appeal — even without a public merits outcome — signals continued commercial and enforcement interest in this patent family.
Plaintiff v Defendant — key questions answered
The recorded basis of termination for Appeal No. 21-2349 is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order separately states 'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.' Both characterisations are presented as they appear in the available record. The specific procedural basis reconciling these two descriptions is not disclosed in the available public record.
Two patents were asserted: US6362822B1 (application US09/268078) and US7061488B2 (application US10/010776). Both cover lighting and shadowing methods and arrangements for use in computer graphic simulations, a technology domain relevant to gaming engines, GPU rendering, visual effects, and real-time 3D environments.
The plaintiff and defendant party names are not disclosed in the available public record for this appeal. The originating action was characterised as an infringement action. No law firm or agent information is recorded in the available data.
No invalidation of either patent is recorded in the available public record. The appeal closed with a basis of termination of 'Appeal Dismissed' and a docket order stating AFFIRMED. Neither characterisation constitutes an invalidation ruling. Both patents should be treated as potentially enforceable in the absence of a contrary USPTO or court determination.
The appeal ran 487 days, from 24 September 2021 to 24 January 2023. This duration is consistent with typical Federal Circuit briefing and argument schedules for patent infringement appeals, which commonly range from 12 to 24 months depending on complexity and whether oral argument is granted.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.