- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Mullen Industries LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00744 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board denied Mullen Industries LLC’s motion to dismiss and entered adverse judgment after institution based on its disclaimer of all challenged claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“We determine that Petitioner has the better position. Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). “The application of the [adverse judgment] rule on its face does not turn on the patentee’s characterization of its own request.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, Patent Owner, after the institution decisions, disclaimed the challenged claims such that there are no remaining claims in the trials. Patent Owner presents no persuasive reasons why we should not apply Rule 42.73 or why termination or dismissal is more appropriate. Under the IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2) IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2) circumstances of these cases, we construe the filing of disclaimers as requests for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 12,019,791 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Mullen Industries LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00745 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board denied Mullen Industries LLC’s motions to dismiss and entered adverse judgment on challenged claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 after their post-institution disclaimer.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). “The application of the [adverse judgment] rule on its face does not turn on the patentee’s characterization of its own request.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Constitution that there exist a case or controversy to be adjudicated by a district court. See Sanofi-Aventis, 933 F.3d at 1372–73. The Board is not a district court or any other Article III court, and Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that Sanofi-Aventis supports its argument that dismissal, as opposed to adverse judgement, is appropriate.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,662,582 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Mullen Industries LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00746 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board denied Mullen Industries LLC’s motion to dismiss and entered adverse judgment after institution for disclaimed claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent 10,974,151.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“We determine that Petitioner has the better position. Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). “The application of the [adverse judgment] rule on its face does not turn on the patentee’s characterization of its own request.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, Patent Owner, after the institution decisions, disclaimed the challenged claims such that there are no remaining claims in the trials. Patent Owner presents no persuasive reasons why we should not apply Rule 42.73 or why termination or dismissal is more appropriate. Under the IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2) IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2) circumstances of these cases, we construe the filing of disclaimers as requests for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Constitution that there exist a case or controversy to be adjudicated by a district court. See Sanofi-Aventis, 933 F.3d at 1372–73. The Board is not a district court or any other Article III court, and Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that Sanofi-Aventis supports its argument that dismissal, as opposed to adverse judgement, is appropriate.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 10,974,151 - Snap Inc. v. Playvuu, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00848 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–11 after abandonment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Judgment (Paper 14, “Request for Adverse Judgment”), which states “[p]ursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) Patent Owner makes this request for the Board to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1-11” of the ’911 patent. Id. at 1. Patent Owner further states “Patent Owner makes this request because Patent Owner is not filing a Patent Owner Response and is abandoning this proceeding.” Id. Upon review of Patent Owner’s unopposed Request for Adverse Judgment, we grant the request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,931,911 - Early Warning Services, LLC v. Fintech Innovation Associates LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 17, 2023 · PGR2022-00046 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it disclaimed the sole challenged claim, which the Board cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id.” slip op. at 3
None - PTAB · Mar 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01640 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and terminated review of challenged claims 2 and 3 after Patent Owner disclaimed them.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Owner indicates that it disclaimed all interest in the challenged claims. Response 1 (citing Ex. 2002 (Disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) of claims 2 and 3)). Patent Owner requests adverse judgment. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Because Patent Owner satisfies the regulatory standard, we grant Patent Owner’s request. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), inter partes review of claims 2 and 3 of the ’156 patent is terminated.2” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,389,156 - Precision Power, LLC v. Powertec Solutions International, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · PGR2021-00043 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it abandoned the contest; claims 1–7 were canceled and the proceeding terminated.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Moreover, certain actions taken by a party, such as “[a]bandonment of the contest,” can be construed as a request for adverse judgment against that party. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Although we instituted a trial, we have not yet decided the merits of this proceeding. Accordingly, we enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) and terminate the trial pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,637,264” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,637,264 - Graco Children’S Products Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00911 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 46–50 cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“unpatentability applied to claims 46–50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,458,114 B2 (“the ’114 patent”). Paper 8, 18. Patent Owner, Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Kolcraft”), now requests judgment against itself pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).1 Paper 13. As a part of that request, Kolcraft also seeks cancellation of claims 46–50 of the ’114 patent. Id. Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment against it is granted. In so granting that request, and as sought by Kolcraft, no claims of the ’114 patent remain in this proceeding. It is ORDERED that Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 46–50 of the ’114 patent will be cancelled;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,458,114 - Denso Corporation v. Netlatch, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00473 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Continental’s request for adverse judgment as patent owner for claims 14, 17, 27, and 31.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3), “[c]oncession of unpatentability” may be construed as a request for adverse judgment. We understand Continental to expressly request entry of adverse judgment against itself as the current patent owner. IPR2015-00481, Continental’s Ownership Statement 5. Additionally, we treat Continental’s concession that certain challenged claims are unpatentable (id. at 5; see IPR2015-00481, Paper 4 (Petition) 3–4 (challenging claims 14, 17, 31, and 33 of the ’431 patent)) as a request for adverse judgment at least as to those claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to Patent Owner Continental is appropriate.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“assignment, and found that neither weighed in favor of Mr. Wingard. Id. at 9–10. The Court ultimately found, “at the time of the [bankruptcy] filing, that the patent was owned by Mr. Wingard personally, and, therefore, became part of the [Bankruptcy] Estate,” and the Court granted the Trustee’s motion to sell the patent. Id. at 10, 11; see also Ex. 1020 (Order granting the motion). The time to appeal the order has expired and no appeal was sought. Ex. 1017, 2 (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002). In an assignment dated December 17, 2015, the Bankruptcy Trustee assigned to Continental the entire right, title, and interest in the ’431 patent. Ex. 1017. An assignment from the Trustee to Continental Automotive GmbH is recorded in the USPTO at Reel/Frame 037329/0544. Ex. 3001. II. ANALYSIS In light of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order and the authorized sale of the ’431 patent, we recognize Continental as the current owner of the ’431 patent for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding. Continental asserts in the related 481 case: “because Continental is now the patent owner and has represented that the 431 patent claims are invalid, the claims should be found unpatentable either by way of a final determination or in response to a request for adverse judgment.” IPR2015-00481, Continental’s Ownership Statement 5.6 Continental also indicates that the same request” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 5,530,431 - PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00481 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Continental’s request for adverse judgment on claims 14, 17, 31, and 33 after Continental, as patent owner, conceded those claims were unpatentable.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3), “[c]oncession of unpatentability” may be construed as a request for adverse judgment. 5 Continental also asserts that Netlatch should be dismissed as a party and that all papers filed by Netlatch expunged. Continental’s Ownership Statement 5. Continental does not persuade us that those steps are necessary. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.14 (“The record of a proceeding, including documents and things, shall be made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered.”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012) (referring to “the public’s interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history”). We understand Continental to expressly request entry of adverse judgment against itself as the current patent owner. Continental’s Ownership Statement 5. Additionally, we treat Continental’s concession that the challenged claims are unpatentable (id. at 5; see Pet. 3–4) as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to Patent Owner Continental is appropriate.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 5,530,431
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.