- 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 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01002 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Signal IP’s request for adverse judgment after cancellation of all claims remaining in the trial: claims 8–11, 13, 15, and 17.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“(b) Request for adverse judgment. A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . . (2) Cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,775,601 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2016 · IPR2015-00941 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Signal IP after cancellation of all challenged claims 8–11, 13, 15, and 17.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“(b) Request for adverse judgment. A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . .” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,775,601 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. / Honda Of Amercia Mfg., Inc. et al. v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 24, 2015 · IPR2015-01005 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26-29, 33, and 34 after cancellation and disclaimer left no trial claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under the Rules, 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, claims 21, 26, and 28 of the ’486 patent were cancelled in Reexamination Certificate US 6,434,486 C1 (Ex. 2004), and Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent (Ex. 2005). 1 Patent Owner filed copies of the reexamination certificate and statutory disclaimer referenced in its Updated Notices as Exhibits 2004 and 2005, respectively. Paper 11, 2. Because Patent Owner disclaimed, inter alia, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 27, 29, 33, and 34 of the ’486 patent, constituting all of the claims involved in this trial that had not already been cancelled in the reexamination certificate, we construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for entry of adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,434,486 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 24, 2015 · IPR2015-00890 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 21, 23, 26–28, 30, 34, and 35 after cancellation and disclaimer left no instituted claims remaining.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under the Rules, 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, claims 21, 26, and 28 of the ’486 patent were cancelled in Reexamination Certificate US 6,434,486 C1 (Ex. 2004), and Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent (Ex. 2005). 1 Patent Owner filed copies of the reexamination certificate and statutory disclaimer referenced in its Updated Notices as Exhibits 2004 and 2005, respectively. Paper 13, 2. Because Patent Owner disclaimed, inter alia, claims 23, 27, 30, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent, constituting all of the claims involved in this trial that had not already been cancelled in the reexamination certificate, we construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for entry of adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,434,486 - Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc., Dba Compli, Inc. / Hotlinkhr, Inc. et al. v. Employment Law Compliance, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00562 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner in both proceedings and cancelled claims 1–20, 74–80, and 89–94.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in each of the two proceedings. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner acknowledges that, in accordance with its requests, the Board will terminate the proceedings and cancel all challenged claims. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. Patent Owner further acknowledges that its actions subject it to the estoppel provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d). IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay Co- Pending Ex Parte Reexamination Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (IPR2014-00562, Paper 17) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,330,817 - Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc., Dba Compli, Inc. / Hotlinkhr, Inc. et al. v. Employment Law Compliance, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2015-00544 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the patent owner in both proceedings, canceled claims 1–20, 74–80, and 89–94, and dismissed the stay motion as moot.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in each of the two proceedings. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner acknowledges that, in accordance with its requests, the Board will terminate the proceedings and cancel all challenged claims. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. Patent Owner further acknowledges that its actions subject it to the estoppel provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d). IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay Co- Pending Ex Parte Reexamination Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (IPR2014-00562, Paper 17) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,330,817 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 20, 2014 · IPR2014-00590 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
Adverse judgment was entered against Patent Owner on claim 31, and its request to cancel that claim was granted.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“6,095,661 on September 3, 2014. Paper 23. Pursuant to our authorization, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment on October 17, 2014, requesting cancellation of claim 31, the only claim on which trial was instituted. Paper 28. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claim 31; FURTHER ORDERED that this constitutes a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); and FURTHER ORDERED that the request to cancel claim 31 is granted.” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 6,095,661 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00610 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner and granted cancellation of instituted claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661 on March 7, 2014. Paper 10. In response to a request by Patent Owner during the initial conference for this case on April 10, 2014, we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion to request cancellation of the claims on which trial was instituted, or request adverse judgment by no later than April 17, 2014. Paper 12. We further authorized Petitioners to file, no later than April 24, 2014, any opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Id. On April 16, 2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment, requesting cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48, all of the claims on which trial was instituted. Paper 13. Petitioners did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,095,661 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00611 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and granted cancellation of instituted claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“24-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390 B1 on March 7, 2014. Paper 8. In response to a request by Patent Owner during the initial conference for this case on April 10, 2014, we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion to request cancellation of the claims on which trial was instituted, or request for adverse judgment by no later than April 17, 2014. Paper 10. We further authorized Petitioners to file, no later than April 24, 2014, any opposition to the Patent Owner’s motion. Id. On April 16, 2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment, requesting cancellation of claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39, all of the claims on which trial was instituted. Paper 11. Petitioners did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,488,390
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.