United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION, Appellant

v.

UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, Appellee

COKE MORGAN STEWART, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________

2023-2110 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021- 00275. ______________________

Decided: June 5, 2025 ______________________

KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar- gued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD EPSTEIN, Norwalk, CT. Case: 23-2110 Document: 86 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2025

2 DOLBY LAB’YS LICENSING CORP. v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC

ANGELA M. OLIVER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ADAM LLOYD ERICKSON; DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Dallas, TX; ROSHAN MANSINGHANI, JESSICA LEANN ANDERSEN MARKS, Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD.

KEVIN J. KENNEDY, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ar- gued for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON; PETER J. AYERS, MICHAEL S. FORMAN, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solic- itor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexan- dria, VA. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN, Circuit Judges. MOORE, Chief Judge. Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) ap- peals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577 are not unpatentable. Because Dolby fails to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Dolby owns the ’577 patent, directed to a prediction method using an in-loop filter. ’577 patent at 1:54–58. Uni- fied Patents, LLC (Unified) petitioned for inter partes re- view (IPR) challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ’577 patent as anticipated and obvious. J.A. 76. In its petition, Unified certified it was the sole real party in interest (RPI) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). J.A. 81. Dolby identified nine other entities it believed should also have been named as RPIs (Alleged RPIs). J.A. 3568–86. In its institution decision, the Board declined to adjudicate whether the Alleged RPIs Case: 23-2110 Document: 86 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2025

DOLBY LAB’YS LICENSING CORP. v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 3

were RPIs and instituted review with Unified as the sole RPI. J.A. 5044–47. In its final written decision, the Board held Unified failed to show any of the challenged claims are unpatenta- ble. J.A. 36. The Board again declined to adjudicate the RPI dispute, explaining such a determination is unneces- sary because there is no evidence any of the Alleged RPIs are time-barred or estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315 from bringing the IPR or that Unified purposefully omitted any of the Alleged RPIs to gain an advantage. J.A. 3–5 (citing SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., No. IPR2020- 00734, Paper 11 at 2, 16, 18, 32 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential)). The Board followed the United States Pa- tent and Trademark Office’s practice of only adjudicating RPI disputes when material to the proceeding in the inter- est of cost and efficiency. SharkNinja, No. IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18–20. Dolby appeals. Unified and the Direc- tor of the Patent and Trademark Office, wh