• Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2014 · IPR2014-00149 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1–14 and entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on those claims.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDecided for patent owner

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation 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). Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims of the ’580 patent on which a trial was instituted, such that Patent Owner would have no remaining claim in the trial. Thus, it is appropriate to enter judgment at this time.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “claims at issue in the instant proceeding, namely claims 1–14. Mot. to Amend. In email correspondence to Board administrative staff dated July 17, 2014 and July 18, 2014, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, cancelling claims 1–14, is granted. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation 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). Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims of the ’580 patent on which a trial was instituted, such that Patent Owner would have no remaining claim in the trial. Thus, it is appropriate to enter judgment at this time.” slip op. at 4

  • Additional discoveryNot reached

    “MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Compel Testimony is dismissed as moot because judgment is being entered against Patent Owner on the challenged claims.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,321,580

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.