- Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 31, 2026 · IPR2025-00216 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after disclaimer of claims 1–20.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Our Rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and that “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Such is the case here. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s unopposed Request for Adverse Judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,487,138 - Intex Recreation Corp. v. Bestway Inflatables And Material Corp.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00488 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, cancelled claims 3–15 and 17, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. ANALYSIS A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include cancellation of patent claims such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 3–15 and 17 of the ’633 patent leaves no claim remaining in the trial. Accordingly, entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,687,633 - Intex Recreation Corp. v. Bestway Inflatables And Material Corp.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00486 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 2, 16, 19, and 20 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. ANALYSIS A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include cancellation of patent claims such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1, 2, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’633 patent leaves no claim remaining in the trial. Accordingly, entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,687,633 - Developmental Technologies, LLC v. E. M. P. Enterprises, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Sep 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01534 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–18, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The Board’s rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). In addition, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Because Patent Owner requests adverse judgment and disclaimed all claims of the ’956 patent, we grant Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,091,956 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 11, 2022 · IPR2018-01146 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 6 and 14 after their disclaimer, then terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. ANALYSIS Actions construed as a request for adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 6 and 14 (along with unchallenged claims 3–5 and 8–11) of the ’712 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253 according to the procedures set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 3002, 1. We agree with Petitioner that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) provides that the Board should construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer to be a request that the Board enter adverse judgment against it with respect to claims 6 and 14, the only claims at issue, in this proceeding. Ex. 3001; see also Unified Patents, LLC v. Arsus, LLC, IPR2020-00948, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2021) (construing statutory disclaimer of all challenged claims as request for adverse judgment), aff’d, Case No. 2021- 1648, 2021 WL 5315423 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2021). Having reviewed the Disclaimer (Ex. 3002), we determine that entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 6 and 14 of the ’712 patent is appropriate. Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19 are no longer part of this IPR proceeding because we made a final judgment with regard to these claims and that judgment has not been reversed or vacated. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (“A decision is final only if it disposes of all necessary issues with regard to the party seeking judicial review, and does not indicate that further action is required.” (emphasis added)). As such, these claims are not “in the trial” within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Federal Circuit remanded the Decision as to only claims 6 and 14. As such, our determination of adverse judgment does not apply to claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19. Patent Owner’s Disclaimer of claims 6 and 14 means that Patent Owner has no claims remaining in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,568,712
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.