- Superior Communications, Inc. v. Speculative Product Design, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 24, 2014 · IPR2014-00146 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Superior Communications, Inc. and terminated the proceeding before institution.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Petitioner’s request to terminate the proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) is treated as a statement that it is abandoning the contest, and is thus requesting adverse judgment against itself. 1 This case is in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no institution of a trial has been made. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment, and the proceeding is terminated.3” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,204,561 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00194 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions to terminate the proceedings before deciding whether to institute trial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once parties enter into a settlement agreement, authorization to file a joint motion to terminate may be sought. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In these cases, the parties failed to follow the correct procedure and filed the joint motions without prior authorization. However, based on the particular facts of the cases, we discern no prejudice to either party, or the public. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the filing of the joint motions to include a request for authorization to file, and hereby grant such authorization. Turning the merits of the motions, we note that these cases are in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. Based on the facts of the cases, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,335,157 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00232 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, treated the settlement agreement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings before deciding whether to institute trial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once parties enter into a settlement agreement, authorization to file a joint motion to terminate may be sought. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In these cases, the parties failed to follow the correct procedure and filed the joint motions without prior authorization. However, based on the particular facts of the cases, we discern no prejudice to either party, or the public. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the filing of the joint motions to include a request for authorization to file, and hereby grant such authorization. Turning the merits of the motions, we note that these cases are in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. Based on the facts of the cases, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted; 2 A preliminary proceeding begins with the filing of a petition for instituting a trial and ends with a written decision as to whether trial will be instituted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,345,402 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00095 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions to terminate the proceedings before deciding whether to institute trial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once parties enter into a settlement agreement, authorization to file a joint motion to terminate may be sought. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In these cases, the parties failed to follow the correct procedure and filed the joint motions without prior authorization. However, based on the particular facts of the cases, we discern no prejudice to either party, or the public. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the filing of the joint motions to include a request for authorization to file, and hereby grant such authorization. Turning the merits of the motions, we note that these cases are in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. Based on the facts of the cases, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,483,080 - PTAB · Nov 19, 2013 · IPR2013-00197 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement, without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on September 23, 2013. Paper No. 16. This matter, however, is in the preliminary stages. The parties have not identified any other related matters between them. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment2 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“to a settlement. On, November 7, 2013, 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 No. 23. On, November 11, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate and to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential.1 Paper No. 22. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. With their motion to terminate and to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement. Paper No. 22, Ex. 2001 (Confidential Exhibit a A).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,204,561
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.