- Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Technologies, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 31, 2014 · IPR2013-00331 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the patent owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-21, and 24-26.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation or disclaimer of one or more claims, such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial, is construed to be a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Innercap has not only requested cancellation of all claims on which trial was instituted 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. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that patent owner Innercap’s Request for Entry of Adverse Judgment is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-21, and 24-26 of US Patent No. 8,361,497 are cancelled.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,361,497 - Crestron Electronics, Inc. v. Norman IP Holdings, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 17, 2014 · IPR2013-00278 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled all challenged claims: 4, 6-9, 13-17, 20, 35-39, 42, 47-50, 53-57, and 60.
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 motion to amend the claims is pending, and, in fact, Patent Owner has requested that each claim for which this inter partes review was instituted be cancelled. Paper 14 at 2. Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of the claims as requested is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,592,555
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.