- Snap Inc. v. Playvuu, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00848 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–11 after abandonment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Judgment (Paper 14, “Request for Adverse Judgment”), which states “[p]ursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) Patent Owner makes this request for the Board to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1-11” of the ’911 patent. Id. at 1. Patent Owner further states “Patent Owner makes this request because Patent Owner is not filing a Patent Owner Response and is abandoning this proceeding.” Id. Upon review of Patent Owner’s unopposed Request for Adverse Judgment, we grant the request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,931,911 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01640 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and terminated review of challenged claims 2 and 3 after Patent Owner disclaimed them.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Owner indicates that it disclaimed all interest in the challenged claims. Response 1 (citing Ex. 2002 (Disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) of claims 2 and 3)). Patent Owner requests adverse judgment. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Because Patent Owner satisfies the regulatory standard, we grant Patent Owner’s request. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), inter partes review of claims 2 and 3 of the ’156 patent is terminated.2” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,389,156 - Precision Power, LLC v. Powertec Solutions International, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · PGR2021-00043 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it abandoned the contest; claims 1–7 were canceled and the proceeding terminated.
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). Moreover, certain actions taken by a party, such as “[a]bandonment of the contest,” can be construed as a request for adverse judgment against that party. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). 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. It is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,637,264” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,637,264 - 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.