Singular Computing LLC — Federal Circuit Cross-Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed (Case 22-2014)
Singular Computing LLC moved to voluntarily dismiss three linked cross-appeals — Nos. 2022-2013, 2022-2014, and 2022-2015 — at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involving US9218156B2, a patent covering compact arithmetic processing elements. The unopposed motion was granted in 180 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Singular Computing drops three Federal Circuit cross-appeals over compact arithmetic patent
Singular Computing LLC initiated cross-appeals Nos. 2022-2013, 2022-2014, and 2022-2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 13, 2022. The appeals concern US9218156B2 (application No. US13/849606), a patent covering processing with compact arithmetic processing elements — a technology relevant to specialised hardware computation architectures. The underlying verdict cause is recorded as an invalidity/cancellation action on patentability grounds.
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Singular Computing LLC filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss all three cross-appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which the court granted. The order further specifies that each side shall bear its own costs for those appeals, and that the revised official caption for any remaining appeals is reflected in the court's order. The specific terms underlying the decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on January 9, 2023 — 180 days after filing — which is relatively swift for Federal Circuit proceedings. The motion was unopposed, suggesting alignment between the parties at the time of dismissal, though the reasons for that alignment are not disclosed in the public record. The remaining appeals (distinct from the three cross-appeals dismissed here) were assigned to a merits panel, indicating the broader dispute may continue in a different procedural posture.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 180 days
180 days from filing to dismissal — a relatively swift resolution at the Federal Circuit appeal level
US9218156B2 — Processing with compact arithmetic processing element
Any R&D team or product organisation working on compact arithmetic processors, low-precision computing units, AI hardware accelerators, or custom silicon with area-efficient arithmetic should assess exposure to US9218156B2. The patent remains in force, its validity has not been conclusively resolved by the Federal Circuit in these proceedings, and the remaining merits appeals could produce a ruling that affects enforceability. An FTO analysis is particularly advisable before launch of hardware products in this technical space.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order grants Singular Computing LLC's unopposed motion under FRAP 42(b), dismissing cross-appeal Nos. 2022-2013, 2022-2014, and 2022-2015 without a ruling on the merits of patentability or invalidity. The cost-neutrality provision — each side bears its own costs — and the direction to transmit the order to the remaining merits panel suggest the broader dispute over US9218156B2 continues in a separate appellate track.
Voluntary dismissal: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
FRAP 42(b) voluntary dismissal — no merits ruling issued
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows a party to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a motion. Here, Singular Computing's motion was unopposed and granted by the Federal Circuit. Crucially, a FRAP 42(b) dismissal does not constitute a ruling on the merits — the court issued no judgment on patentability or validity of US9218156B2 in connection with these three cross-appeals.
No merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on prejudice status
A voluntary dismissal may be entered with or without prejudice, carrying materially different consequences: dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing the same claims, while dismissal without prejudice preserves that option. The available order does not specify which applies to these cross-appeals. Practitioners should not assume either — the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Prejudice status undisclosedSingular Computing retains US9218156B2 — but cross-appeal strategy abandoned
By voluntarily dismissing its cross-appeals, Singular Computing withdraws from the appellate front it opened on those specific issues. The underlying patent US9218156B2 remains in force absent a separate invalidation. However, any arguments or relief Singular Computing sought through these cross-appeals are no longer before the court on this procedural posture.
Patent in force; cross-appeal withdrawnRemaining merits appeals proceed — broader dispute unresolved
The Federal Circuit's order notes that remaining appeals (separate from the dismissed cross-appeals) are assigned to a merits panel, suggesting the core dispute over US9218156B2 and compact arithmetic processing technology is not fully resolved. Companies in specialised hardware and compact arithmetic processor design should monitor the remaining proceedings for any patentability ruling on this patent.
Broader dispute ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plaintiff | Individual | Singular Computing LLC — holder of US9218156B2 covering compact arithmetic processing elementsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Respondent party in invalidity/cancellation cross-appeals at the Federal Circuit; identity not named in available recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the compact arithmetic processing IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Singular Computing's Federal Circuit appeal over US9218156B2 and the broader compact arithmetic processor technology landscape.
Singular Computing's compact arithmetic filing activity
Singular Computing's assertion of US9218156B2 in a Federal Circuit invalidity proceeding suggests confidence in the breadth of its compact arithmetic processing IP. Mapping Singular Computing's broader portfolio can reveal continuation filings, related claims, and enforcement posture across low-precision and approximate computing architectures — critical intelligence for hardware teams building in this space.
Portfolio breadth signalFiling trends in compact and low-precision arithmetic hardware
Compact and low-precision arithmetic processing is a high-activity filing domain driven by AI accelerator, edge inference, and custom silicon development. Tracking patent filing trends in this space — including applicants, claim scope evolution, and citation networks around US9218156B2 — can surface competitive threats and white-space opportunities for hardware R&D teams.
High-activity filing domainHow defendants in this space are building defensive IP
Parties challenging patents like US9218156B2 in inter partes review and Federal Circuit proceedings typically build defensive portfolios around alternative processing architectures. Analysing the patent activity of entities contesting Singular Computing's claims can reveal competing design-around strategies and freedom-to-operate pathways in the compact arithmetic processor sector.
Defensive portfolio intelligenceAdjacent R&D opportunities near US9218156B2's claim space
The contested claim space around compact arithmetic processing elements may leave adjacent technical areas — such as mixed-precision arithmetic units, stochastic rounding hardware, or approximate computing memory interfaces — with lower patent density. An Eureka white-space analysis around US9218156B2's citation and claim landscape can identify innovation corridors with reduced litigation risk.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit cases involving compact arithmetic and processor patent appeals
Explore related Federal Circuit invalidity appeals involving processor and computing hardware patents — the same court and technology domain as Case No. 22-2014.
What this case signals for the compact arithmetic processing IP landscape
Singular Computing's voluntary dismissal of three Federal Circuit cross-appeals leaves the core patent dispute unresolved and the remaining merits appeals active.
Monitor the remaining Federal Circuit merits panel proceedings
The court's order explicitly preserves a merits panel for remaining appeals. Any patentability ruling on US9218156B2 — covering compact arithmetic processing elements — could carry significant implications for hardware IP in this space. IP teams should track the docket for a substantive Federal Circuit decision.
FRAP 42(b) dismissals signal possible settlement or strategic repositioning
An unopposed voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit, with each side bearing its own costs, is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision to narrow the issues on appeal. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record, but the alignment between parties is commercially significant.
Plaintiff v Defendant — key questions answered
Singular Computing LLC filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss cross-appeals Nos. 2022-2013, 2022-2014, and 2022-2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under FRAP 42(b). The motion was granted on January 9, 2023, with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling on patentability was issued for these cross-appeals.
The patent at issue is US9218156B2 (application No. US13/849606), which covers processing with compact arithmetic processing elements. The underlying dispute involved an invalidity/cancellation action on patentability grounds.
No. The Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on the validity or patentability of US9218156B2 in connection with the dismissed cross-appeals. The voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) ended those specific appeals without a judicial determination on the merits. Remaining appeals were assigned to a merits panel.
The available docket order does not specify whether the voluntary dismissal is with or without prejudice. The order grants the motion and directs each side to bear its own costs, but the specific terms regarding prejudice status are not disclosed in the available public record.
The order states that each side shall bear its own costs for the dismissed cross-appeals. This means neither party is entitled to recover appellate costs — such as filing fees or docketing charges — from the other in connection with cross-appeal Nos. 2022-2013, 2022-2014, and 2022-2015. It does not address attorney fees or any broader financial terms, which are not disclosed in the available record.
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.