PTAB
Advanced fields
2 decisions · 381msnewest first
  • PTAB · Jun 3, 2016 · IPR2015-01795 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered cancellation of claims 1–4 of the ’386 patent.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “II. DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Also, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include cancellation of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Here, Patent Owner has requested cancellation of all the claims identified for trial and expressly requested entry of adverse judgment. Paper 14. Patent Owner’s requests for cancellation of claims 1–4 of the ’386 patent and for entry of adverse judgment are granted.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,647,386
  • PTAB · Jun 3, 2016 · IPR2015-01749 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Adverse judgment

    The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claim 5 canceled after institution of trial.

    RulingsAdverse judgment
    • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

      “II. DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Also, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include cancellation of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Here, Patent Owner has requested cancellation of all the claims identified for trial and expressly requested entry of adverse judgment. Paper 14. Patent Owner’s requests for cancellation of claim 5 of the ’853 patent and for entry of adverse judgment are granted.” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 7,204,853

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.