- 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoAdverse judgmentPTAB · 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
NonePatents in suitUS 8,273,573 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2014 · IPR2014-00284 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Lifeport Sciences’ request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1-3, 9-18, 23, 27-31, and 33-35.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The Board construes disclaimer of all claims at issue in a trial as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Because Lifeport Sciences has disclaimed all claims at issue in this proceeding, entry of judgment against it is appropriate. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Lifeport Sciences’ request for judgment against itself with respect to claims 1-3, 9-18, 23, 27-31, and 33-35 of U.S. Patent No. 5,562,728 is granted;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,562,728 - PTAB · May 12, 2014 · IPR2014-00586 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the proceeding terminated.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“This case is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage; no institution of a trial has been made. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,278,351 - PTAB · May 12, 2014 · IPR2014-00466 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding before institution because the parties settled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“This case is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage; no institution of a trial has been made. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is GRANTED.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,383,675 - Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge LtdAdverse judgmentPTAB · May 6, 2014 · IPR2013-00518 · APJ Scott E Kamholz · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Illumina’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment against it on claims 7 and 11-14 after Illumina disclaimed those claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The Board construes cancellation of all claims at issue in a trial as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Because Illumina has cancelled all claims at issue in this proceeding, entry of judgment against it is appropriate. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Illumina’s request for judgment against itself with respect to claims 7 and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,517 is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered herein against Illumina with respect to claims 7 and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,517.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,566,537 - 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 - 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 - Hitachi Cable America Inc. v. Belden Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · 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
NonePatents 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.