- Microsoft Corporation v. Edge Networking Systems, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00618 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Adverse judgment
After Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims, the Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2).
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Our rules state that “disclaimer of a claim such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial” is “construed to be a request for adverse judgment.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Because Patent Owner has disclaimed all challenged claims and no claims remain in this proceeding, adverse judgment is appropriate. We, therefore, enter judgment adverse to the Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,695,823 - Askeladden LLC v. Dekel ShilohAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · IPR2020-01415 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–19 after finding he abandoned the contest by failing to file mandatory notices or other papers.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“adverse judgment should not be entered against Patent Owner in view of his failure to file mandatory notices. Paper 8. The Order explained that the Board’s rules provide that “[a] party may request adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding” and that “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” Id. at 3 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)). The Order also explained that “[f]ailure to participate in a proceeding, such as failure to file mandatory notices according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b), may be considered abandonment of the contest and result in adverse judgment against a patent owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” Id. (citing Cellpak, Inc. v. Mambate USA Inc., IPR2021-00007, Paper 4 at 2 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2021)). The Order gave” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,112,405
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.