- Polygroup Services N.A., Inc. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 17, 2021 · IPR2021-00489 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s unopposed request for adverse judgment and terminated the IPR.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” As permitted by this Rule, Patent Owner has explicitly asked the Board to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Paper 11, 1. Having reviewed Patent Owner’s unopposed request for adverse judgment, we determine that entry of judgment against Patent Owner is appropriate. Thus, we grant the request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). III. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner and this inter partes review is terminated pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,671,097 - 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
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.