- Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00565 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s unopposed motion for adverse judgment after claims 1 and 5-8 were cancelled in reexamination, and terminated the IPR.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“When all claims at issue in an IPR are cancelled in a concurrent reexamination, the Board “construe[s] [the] cancellation of all claims . . . as a request for adverse judgment.” Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Signal IP, Inc., IPR2015-00941, Paper 21 at 2-3 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2016). ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Adverse Judgment is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that Adverse Judgment is entered; and FURTHER ORDERED that this inter partes review is terminated.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,451,845 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00611 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed all challenged claims, terminating the proceeding and entering judgment against Patent Owner.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“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 disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Here, Patent Owner has not only disclaimed all of the challenged claims of the ’224 patent, such that no claim remains in this proceeding, but also expressly requests entry of adverse judgment. Therefore, under § 42.73(b), adverse judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s requests and enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to § 42.73(b), thus terminating this proceeding and cancelling the portion of the July 16, 2024 hearing that was allotted to this proceeding and the ’224 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,197,224 - Petitioner v. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LPAdverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2021-01355 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner on instituted claims 1–14 and 25 after construing its disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Here, Patent Owner has disclaimed all claims in the instituted trial proceeding such that there are no remaining claims at issue in the trial. Thus, we construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer of claims 1–14 and 25 of the ’999 patent as a request for adverse judgment, and we grant the request for adverse judgment as to the instituted claims. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner as to claims 1–14 and 25 of the ’999 patent; and FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is hereby terminated.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesOther
“description. Construing Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer of all claims remaining in the trial as a request for adverse judgment and granting the request precludes Patent Owner under the estoppel provision of § 42.73(d)(3)(i) from obtaining in continuing applications or other subsequent proceedings before the Office claims patentably indistinct from the disclaimed claims. Cf. Ex Parte Aoki, Appeal No. 2012-010117, 2015 WL 3827164 (PTAB June 15, 2015) (affirming Examiner’s final rejection of claims patentably indistinct from claims on which adverse judgment had been entered against applicant in a prior interference proceeding);” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 10,394,999 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 11, 2022 · IPR2018-01146 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 6 and 14 after their disclaimer, then terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. ANALYSIS 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 6 and 14 (along with unchallenged claims 3–5 and 8–11) of the ’712 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253 according to the procedures set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 3002, 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 6 and 14, the only claims at issue, in this proceeding. Ex. 3001; 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). Having reviewed the Disclaimer (Ex. 3002), we determine that entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 6 and 14 of the ’712 patent is appropriate. Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19 are no longer part of this IPR proceeding because we made a final judgment with regard to these claims and that judgment has not been reversed or vacated. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (“A decision is final only if it disposes of all necessary issues with regard to the party seeking judicial review, and does not indicate that further action is required.” (emphasis added)). As such, these claims are not “in the trial” within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Federal Circuit remanded the Decision as to only claims 6 and 14. As such, our determination of adverse judgment does not apply to claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19. Patent Owner’s Disclaimer of claims 6 and 14 means that Patent Owner has no claims remaining in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,568,712 - PTAB · Apr 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01469 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Gold Charm Limited and ordered claims 1 and 5 cancelled after Patent Owner abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“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 to abandon the contest, which would be construed as a request for adverse judgment even apart from Patent Owner’s explicit request for adverse judgment. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1 and 5 of the ʼ163 patent are appropriate. Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,870,163 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jun 8, 2015 · IPR2014-00721 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Adverse judgment
Patent Owner’s motion to cancel claims 1 and 11 was granted and treated as a request for adverse judgment; judgment was entered against Patent Owner on those claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. We construe the cancellation of claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial to be 1 Hatlelid et al., US 6,772,195 B1, issued Aug. 3, 2004 (Ex. 1003). 2 Dwek, US 6,248,946 B1, issued June 19, 2001 (Ex. 1004). 3 Traversat et al., US 7,065,579 B2, issued June 20, 2006 (Ex. 1005). 4 Gong et al., Multicast Security and Its Extension to a Mobile Environment, 1 WIRELESS NETWORKS 281–95 (1995) (Ex. 1006). 5 We note that Patent Owner did not request a conference call with the Board before filing its Motion to Amend, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion and determine that it is appropriate to waive the requirements of this rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). a request for adverse judgment. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims of the ’082 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 3
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“against itself at any time during a proceeding. We construe the cancellation of claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial to be 1 Hatlelid et al., US 6,772,195 B1, issued Aug. 3, 2004 (Ex. 1003). 2 Dwek, US 6,248,946 B1, issued June 19, 2001 (Ex. 1004). 3 Traversat et al., US 7,065,579 B2, issued June 20, 2006 (Ex. 1005). 4 Gong et al., Multicast Security and Its Extension to a Mobile Environment, 1 WIRELESS NETWORKS 281–95 (1995) (Ex. 1006). 5 We note that Patent Owner did not request a conference call with the Board before filing its Motion to Amend, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion and determine that it is appropriate to waive the requirements of this rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). a request for adverse judgment. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims of the ’082 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 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,917,082 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jun 8, 2015 · IPR2014-00718 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Adverse judgment
Patent Owner canceled claims 9 and 10 by motion; the Board treated it as a request for adverse judgment and entered judgment against Patent Owner.
RulingsAdverse judgment- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“II. MOTION TO AMEND In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner seeks to cancel both claims 9 and 10, which are the only claims subject to this proceeding.7 Paper 20, 1. Petitioner did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend canceling claims 9 and 10 of the ’689 patent is granted.” slip op. at 3
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. We construe the cancellation of claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial to be a request for adverse judgment. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, Patent Owner requests cancellation of all claims of the ’689 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
NonePatents in suitUS 7,835,689 - 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 - 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 - Google, Inc v. Inventor Holdings, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · CBM2014-00003 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and entered judgment of unpatentability against claims 1-4, 9-11, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 based on Patent Owner’s concession.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Paper 33, “Req.”. Under section 42.73(b)(3), concession of unpatentability of the contested subject matter is construed as an adverse judgment. In its Request, Patent Owner concedes the unpatentability of and requests adverse judgment regarding claims 14, 911, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 5,844,272. Req. 2. The conceded unpatentability addresses all the claims subject to this proceeding. Therefore, no other patent claims remain for trial in this covered business method review. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3) is hereby granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment of unpatentability is entered against claims 14, 911, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 65 of the U.S. Patent No. 5,884,272.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,884,272
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.