- Hulu, LLC v. Pucs, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00811 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Pucs, Inc. on claims 1–7 after the patent owner disclaimed all claims remaining in the instituted trial.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id. Patent Owner disclaims claim 1−7 of the 619 patent, which are all claims for which trial was instituted such that there are no remaining claims in the trial. Ex. 2005, 1. In its Request for Judgment, Patent Owner requests adverse judgment against itself with respect to the claims of the ’619 patent. Paper 18, 1.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,728,619 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Sma Solar Technology, AG.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00965 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–23 after it disclaimed those claims, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION 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 1–23 of the ’630 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253 according to the procedures set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). See Ex. 2102, 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 1–23, the only claims at issue in this trial. Pet. Reply 1; 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).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,779,630 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Sma Solar Technology, AG.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00964 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner on claims 1–23 after it disclaimed those claims, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION 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 1–23 of the ’630 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253 according to the procedures set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). See Ex. 2002, 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 1–23, the only claims at issue, in this trial. Pet. Reply 1; 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)..” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,779,630 - Redfin Corporation v. Corelogic Solutions, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00027 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment after disclaimer and ordered claims 2–4, 7–8, and 11–20 cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“concerning the status of this case. On March 12, 2015, we authorized Patent Owner to file a Motion for Adverse Judgment. On March 12, 2015, Patent Owner filed its Motion for Adverse Judgment, in which Patent Owner disclaimed claims 2–4, 7, 8, and 11–20. Paper 18. Having disclaimed all the claims involved in this proceeding, Patent Owner’s Motion for Adverse Judgment is GRANTED and claims 2–4, 7, 8, and 11–20 will be cancelled. ORDER In consideration of the above, it is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Adverse Judgment is GRANTED; and FURTHER ORDERED, that claims 2–4, 7, 8 and 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201 shall be cancelled.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,361,201 - Rackspace US, Inc. / Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. Personalweb Technologies, LLC And Level 3 CommunicationsAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 28, 2014 · IPR2014-00057 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, terminated the instituted inter partes reviews as to all parties, and entered judgment after settlement.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless the Board already has decided the merits of the proceedings. Id. In their Joint Motions to Terminate, the parties indicate that they have settled all of their disputes involving the Rackspace inter partes reviews, as well as the related district court proceeding styled PersonalWeb Tech. LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6-12-cv-00659 (E.D. Tex.). Mot. 1, 4. The parties also indicate that they concurrently filed their Stipulation of Dismissal, as to only the Rackspace Defendants with prejudice, in that related district court proceeding. Id.; Ex. 2019. More importantly, the parties expressly state that “no other disputes between the parties remain,” and “[t]here is no other litigation or dispute in any court or forum involving [Rackspace and PersonalWeb].” Id. at 4. Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the Rackspace inter partes reviews as to both parties, and enter judgment.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“3. However, Google’s Petitions were not filed timely in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”).3 Google could have, but did not, file a petition for inter partes review with the one-year time period. More significantly, Google’s Motions for Joinder were not filed timely in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).4 Google fails to provide sufficient reasons as to why we should exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the one-month time limit for filing a Motion for Joinder.5” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 5,978,791 - 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.