- PTAB · Jan 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01777 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner recorded a statutory disclaimer of all challenged claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent” and “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) is “considered as part of the original patent” once it is “recorded” in the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,167,043 - PTAB · Sep 16, 2014 · IPR2013-00571 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, cancelled claims 15, 55, 57, 58, and 60-63, and terminated both joined proceedings.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, including by cancelling claims, such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Patent Owner has cancelled all the claims challenged in these joined proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,135,398 - ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Pragmatus Mobile LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 11, 2014 · IPR2014-00670 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding by settlement before deciding the petition.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The parties have requested that these trial proceedings be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On August 5, 2014, the Board authorized (Paper 8) the parties to file a Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding along with a true copy of any and all settlement agreements between them related to the patent at issue. On August 8, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 9) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. The parties also filed a Joint Motion to Treat the Parties’ Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and Rule 42.74 (Paper 10). The settlement agreement (Paper 11), marked “Confidential,” purports to settle matters between the parties with respect to the patent at issue in this inter partes review. This inter partes review is in its preliminary stage. A decision on the Corrected Petition (Paper 4) has not yet been rendered. The parties have not identified any other USPTO proceedings related to the patent at issue. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,466,795 - Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 1, 2014 · IPR2013-00421 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 unpatentable.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). No Patent Owner response or motion to amend has been filed and the deadline for filing such papers has passed. Under these circumstances, the Request for Entry of Adverse Judgment is appropriate. CONCLUSION The Patent Owner’s Request for Entry of Adverse Judgment is herein granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,359,782 - ZTE Corporation / ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 6, 2013 · IPR2013-00134 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted ContentGuard’s request for adverse judgment and cancellation of claims 12-22 and 30-38 of Patent 7,225,160.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Discussion Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Also, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include cancellation of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. ContentGuard has not only requested cancellation of all claims involved in this inter partes review, such that after the cancellation it will have no remaining claim in the trial, but also expressly requested entry of adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,225,160 - Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00321 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties before deciding whether to institute inter partes review.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“As no trial has been instituted based on Oracle’s petition, this proceeding is in the preliminary proceeding stage.1 Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00321 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,631,449
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.