- LG Display Co., Ltd v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jun 10, 2015 · IPR2014-01357 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner at its request and cancelled claims 1–4, 16, and 26.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has requested cancellation of each claim for which inter partes review has been instituted, and thus Patent Owner has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. § 42.73(b)(2). Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of the claims as requested is appropriate. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Patent Owner’s request for entry of adverse judgment is granted. It is, therefore, ORDERED that adverse judgment against the Patent Owner is entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b);” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,755,547 - Symantec Corporation v. Rpost Communications LimitedAdverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 7, 2014 · IPR2014-00357 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it cancelled claims 9–20, the only claims instituted for review.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has cancelled each claim for which inter partes review has been instituted, and thus Patent Owner has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. § 42.73(b)(2). Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of the claims as requested is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,468,199 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2014 · IPR2014-01038 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the joint motions and terminated IPR2014-00999, IPR2014-01001, IPR2014-01007, and IPR2014-01038 as to both parties without a final written decision.
RulingsAdverse judgment- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties urge the Board to terminate each of these instant proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner. Id. at 2–4. The parties submit that termination is appropriate because each “proceeding is in its infancy.” Id. at 4. Issues raised during the trial have not been briefed fully and the Board has not yet decided the merits of each proceeding. Id. Petitioner indicates that it will no longer participate even if the Board does not terminate the respective proceeding. Id. According to the parties, Congress and federal courts have expressed a strong interest in encouraging settlement in litigation. Id. at 3. In exercising our independent determination, we generally expect that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that terminating each of the proceedings with respect to both Petitioner and Patent Owner, at this early juncture, promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter judgment in each case without rendering a final written decision.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,635,583 - PTAB · Sep 16, 2014 · IPR2013-00571 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, cancelled claims 15, 55, 57, 58, and 60-63, and terminated both joined proceedings.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, including by cancelling claims, such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Patent Owner has cancelled all the claims challenged in these joined proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,135,398 - Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 1, 2014 · IPR2013-00421 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 unpatentable.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). No Patent Owner response or motion to amend has been filed and the deadline for filing such papers has passed. Under these circumstances, the Request for Entry of Adverse Judgment is appropriate. CONCLUSION The Patent Owner’s Request for Entry of Adverse Judgment is herein granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,359,782 - ZTE Corporation / ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 6, 2013 · IPR2013-00134 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted ContentGuard’s request for adverse judgment and cancellation of claims 12-22 and 30-38 of Patent 7,225,160.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Discussion Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 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. ContentGuard has not only requested cancellation of all claims involved 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.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,225,160 - Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00321 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties before deciding whether to institute inter partes review.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“As no trial has been instituted based on Oracle’s petition, this proceeding is in the preliminary proceeding stage.1 Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00321 is GRANTED, and this proceeding is hereby terminated as to all parties including petitioner Oracle and patent owner Clouding; and” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,631,449
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.