Qualcomm v. Intel (22-1825): Federal Circuit Affirms in Part on Power Tracker Patent
Qualcomm and Intel clashed at the Federal Circuit over the validity of US9608675B2, a patent covering power tracking for multiple simultaneous transmit signals — core to modern wireless chipset design. The court issued a split ruling, affirming in part and dismissing in part, after 851 days of appellate proceedings.
A split Federal Circuit verdict on Qualcomm’s wireless power-tracking IP
Qualcomm, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-1825) challenging an invalidity or cancellation determination affecting US9608675B2 — a patent protecting power tracker technology enabling multiple transmit signals to be sent simultaneously. Filed on 26 May 2022, the appeal placed one of Qualcomm’s foundational wireless chipset patents directly in contest with Intel Corp., represented by WilmerHale.
On 23 September 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling of ‘Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part,’ with the basis of termination recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed in Part.’ This split disposition means the court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s patentability determination on at least a portion of the challenged claims, while declining jurisdiction or finding procedural grounds to dismiss the remainder without a merits ruling.
The 851-day duration suggests a complex, fully-briefed appellate contest, consistent with high-stakes IPR appeals between major semiconductor rivals. The public record does not disclose which specific claims were affirmed versus dismissed, nor the precise procedural basis for the partial dismissal — leaving the full scope of surviving claim coverage a matter for further analysis of the court’s opinion.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 851 days
851 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal (~18 months)
Federal Circuit affirms in part: what the split ruling means for both parties
‘Affirmed in Part’ — the appellate standard applied
An ‘Affirmed in Part’ ruling means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s determination on the affirmed claims — those claims remain cancelled or unpatentable as decided below. ‘Dismissed in Part’ indicates the court declined to reach the merits on a subset of issues, typically due to lack of standing, mootness, or a procedural deficiency in the appeal, leaving that portion without a binding appellate ruling.
Split appellate dispositionQualcomm loses ground on affirmed claims, retains uncertainty on dismissed portion
For the portion affirmed, Qualcomm’s challenge fails: the lower invalidity or cancellation ruling stands, and those claims of US9608675B2 cannot benefit from reversal at this appellate level. The dismissed portion offers no merits victory — Qualcomm did not secure a reversal on those issues. Enforcement of the patent for product categories covered by cancelled claims is materially weakened.
Patentability challenge partially upheldIntel secures appellate validation of key invalidity positions
Intel’s successful defence of the IPR outcome — at least on the affirmed portion — signals that the Federal Circuit found the underlying patentability determination legally sound. For Intel and similarly positioned chipset competitors, the affirmance reduces exposure on the affirmed claims. The partial dismissal, however, means some issues were not resolved on the merits, which may leave residual uncertainty in the competitive landscape.
IPR outcome upheld in partPower-tracker IP enforceability narrowed in the wireless chipset sector
US9608675B2 covers power tracking for multiple simultaneous transmit signals — a capability central to modern multi-band and carrier-aggregation chipsets. Affirmance of even part of an invalidity ruling meaningfully narrows Qualcomm’s enforcement leverage over this claim set. Semiconductor designers and wireless OEMs developing products in this space should reassess FTO positions against the surviving claims in light of this split ruling.
Reduced patent enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Qualcomm, Inc. | Company | Wireless semiconductor IP licensor — holder of US9608675B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Intel, Corp. | Company | Intel Corp. — global semiconductor manufacturer and IPR petitionerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Qualcomm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Qualcomm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Langdon Cavanaugh | Attorney | Counsel for Intel, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intel, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s disposition of ‘Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part’ reflects a split outcome applying a deferential appellate standard: factual findings from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are reviewed for substantial evidence, while legal conclusions on patentability are reviewed de novo. The affirmance confirms the lower tribunal’s invalidity determination was legally and factually defensible on the affirmed claims. The partial dismissal — consistent with the recorded basis of termination — suggests the court identified a threshold defect (such as standing or mootness) on a subset of issues, foreclosing a merits ruling on that portion.
US9608675B2 — Power Tracker for Simultaneous Multi-Signal Transmission
US9608675B2 (application no. US13/764328) protects a power tracker architecture designed to manage and optimise power delivery across multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously. This capability is technically critical in modern wireless communications, where carrier aggregation and multi-band operation require precise, concurrent power envelope management across multiple RF chains. The patent’s claims sit at the intersection of RF front-end design and power management integration.
For the wireless semiconductor sector, this patent represents a meaningful position in the power amplifier and envelope-tracking design space — technologies that underpin efficiency in 4G and 5G chipsets. Qualcomm’s assertion of this patent against Intel signals its strategic importance as a barrier to competing chipset architectures. The partial invalidation at the Federal Circuit level narrows — but does not fully eliminate — the risk this patent poses to competitors and their design partners.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9608675B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating wireless chipsets with carrier aggregation or simultaneous multi-band transmission capabilities should treat this patent as a live FTO concern. The Federal Circuit’s partial affirmance means some claim scope of US9608675B2 may remain enforceable. Product teams developing power tracker or envelope tracking modules for 4G/5G platforms face the most direct exposure and should not rely on the partial invalidation as full clearance.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map specific product architectures against the surviving claims of US9608675B2, cross-reference the PTAB trial history, and identify design-around opportunities. Eureka’s claim-level analysis can surface which independent and dependent claims remain in force following the IPR and Federal Circuit proceedings, giving product teams an evidence-based position before launch or licensing discussions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9608675B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: wireless chipset and power-management patents
Cases involving Federal Circuit patentability appeals in the wireless semiconductor and power-management IP space, including Qualcomm and Intel IPR disputes.
What this case signals for the wireless semiconductor IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling between Qualcomm and Intel on core power-tracking IP carries broad implications for chipset design freedom and licensing negotiations.
Partial affirmance narrows but does not eliminate Qualcomm’s enforcement position
The ‘affirmed in part’ disposition confirms at least some claims of US9608675B2 did not survive appellate scrutiny. Companies licensing or designing around this patent family should identify which specific claims remain in force — the dismissed portion may still carry live claim scope pending further proceedings.
IPR as Intel’s strategic lever: a pattern worth tracking
Intel’s successful partial defence of its IPR position at the Federal Circuit is consistent with a broader industry pattern of using inter partes review to neutralise competitor SEP and chipset patents. R&D teams building on power-management architectures should monitor Qualcomm’s remaining claim portfolio for follow-on enforcement activity.
Qualcomm v Intel — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued an ‘Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part’ ruling on 23 September 2024. The court upheld the lower tribunal’s patentability determination on the affirmed portion of the appeal, while dismissing the remaining portion — likely on procedural grounds — without reaching the merits.
US9608675B2 protects a power tracker for multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously — a technology central to multi-band and carrier-aggregation wireless chipsets. Intel challenged the patent’s validity through inter partes review, making the patent’s enforceability against competing chipset architectures the core dispute in this appeal.
A partial dismissal at the Federal Circuit typically means the court declined to adjudicate certain issues on the merits — often due to lack of standing, mootness, or a procedural deficiency in how the appeal was framed. It does not constitute a win or loss on the substance of those issues; they remain unresolved at the appellate level.
Yes, the affirmance confirms that at least part of the IPR invalidity determination against US9608675B2 stands. However, the partial dismissal means some claim scope may not have been finally resolved. Chipset designers and wireless OEMs should conduct a claim-specific FTO analysis against the patent’s current prosecution and trial history before relying on the ruling as full clearance.
Qualcomm was represented by Jones Day, with Matthew Johnson as the lead agent of record. Intel was represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (WilmerHale), with David Langdon Cavanaugh as lead counsel. Both firms are prominent Federal Circuit appellate practitioners in patent matters.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.