• Trienda Holdings, L.L.C. v. Desgagné, Brown Et Associés Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01295 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Adverse judgment

  Adverse judgment was entered against the Patent Owner on claims 1–15 after it abandoned the contest; the Board did not decide the merits.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) (2021). Moreover, pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” Id. § 42.73(b)(4). We consider Patent Owner’s statement that it will not further participate in this proceeding to constitute an abandonment of the contest, and, therefore, a request for judgment against it, which we grant. Also, “[a] patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: (i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). Although we instituted a trial, we have not yet decided the merits of this proceeding. Accordingly, we enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), and terminate the trial pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 10,570,276
• Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01777 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board denied institution because Patent Owner recorded a statutory disclaimer of all challenged claims.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent” and “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) is “considered as part of the original patent” once it is “recorded” in the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,167,043

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.