PTAB
Advanced fields
7 decisions · 580msnewest first
  • PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00456 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment. ORDER It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for adverse judgment (Paper 28) is GRANTED, and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27 of the ’888 patent.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,612,888
  • PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00404 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed all challenged claims: 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,624,844
  • PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01295 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Adverse judgment

    Adverse judgment was entered against the Patent Owner on claims 1–15 after it abandoned the contest; the Board did not decide the merits.

    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) (2021). Moreover, pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” Id. § 42.73(b)(4). We consider Patent Owner’s statement that it will not further participate in this proceeding to constitute an abandonment of the contest, and, therefore, a request for judgment against it, which we grant. Also, “[a] patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: (i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). 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.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 10,570,276
  • PTAB · Aug 31, 2020 · PGR2020-00062 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Adverse judgment

    The Board entered adverse judgment against Streamlight and cancelled all challenged claims, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 18, 20–24, 26–28, and 31, on the Patent Owner’s request.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “Pursuant to 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 suffices as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Board is permitted to enter adverse judgment at any time in a proceeding, including prior to an institution decision. Cf. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision.”).” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 10,378,702
  • PTAB · Feb 3, 2016 · IPR2015-01162 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 1–13 cancelled.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims and entry of adverse judgment. Paper 20, 1. Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1–13 is appropriate.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,273,573
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,361,497
  • PTAB · Jan 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00408 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00408 after settlement, without a final written decision.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “The parties have requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On January 22, 2014, the Board authorized the parties to file a joint request to terminate and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential under 37 C.F.R. 42.74(c). Paper 11. The parties filed the joint motion to terminate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 on January 27, 2014. Paper 12. Accompanying the motion, the parties filed a true copy of a settlement agreement along with a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, to be kept separate from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. Paper 13; Ex. 1008. A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on December 30, 2013. Paper 9. This matter, however, is in its preliminary stages. In their joint motion, the parties represent that they jointly requested that the related district court litigation involving Patent 5,563,377, Belden Inc. v. Hitachi Cable America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-1724 (S.D. Ind.), be dismissed with prejudice. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 1

    None
    Patents in suitUS 5,563,377

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.