- Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00456 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment. ORDER It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for adverse judgment (Paper 28) is GRANTED, and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27 of the ’888 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,612,888 - HP Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00404 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed all challenged claims: 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,624,844 - Parhelion, Inc. v. Streamlight, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 31, 2020 · PGR2020-00062 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Streamlight and cancelled all challenged claims, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 18, 20–24, 26–28, and 31, on the Patent Owner’s request.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation or disclaimer of one or more claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial suffices as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Board is permitted to enter adverse judgment at any time in a proceeding, including prior to an institution decision. Cf. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision.”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,378,702 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00713 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include disclaimer of the involved application or patent and cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. In light of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–44 of the ’077 patent, we determine that entry of judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31 of the ’077 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,035,077 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00948 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s adverse-judgment motion, entered judgment against Patent Owner, and cancelled claims 2, 22, 23, and 25.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and it did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,370,371 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00947 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,061,551 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00946 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 82, 90, and 91.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 B1 (“the ’518 patent”). Paper 1. ParkerVision, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on September 24, 2014. Paper 7. On December 18, 2014, we instituted this inter partes review of claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent. Paper 8.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,266,518 - Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc., Dba Compli, Inc. / Hotlinkhr, Inc. et al. v. Employment Law Compliance, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00562 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner in both proceedings and cancelled claims 1–20, 74–80, and 89–94.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in each of the two proceedings. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner acknowledges that, in accordance with its requests, the Board will terminate the proceedings and cancel all challenged claims. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. Patent Owner further acknowledges that its actions subject it to the estoppel provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d). IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay Co- Pending Ex Parte Reexamination Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (IPR2014-00562, Paper 17) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,330,817 - Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc., Dba Compli, Inc. / Hotlinkhr, Inc. et al. v. Employment Law Compliance, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · IPR2015-00544 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the patent owner in both proceedings, canceled claims 1–20, 74–80, and 89–94, and dismissed the stay motion as moot.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in each of the two proceedings. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner acknowledges that, in accordance with its requests, the Board will terminate the proceedings and cancel all challenged claims. IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. Patent Owner further acknowledges that its actions subject it to the estoppel provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d). IPR2014-00562, Paper 24, 1; IPR2015-00544, Paper 7, 1. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay Co- Pending Ex Parte Reexamination Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (IPR2014-00562, Paper 17) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,330,817 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 14, 2015 · IPR2014-01461 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, entered judgment against it on claims 1–20, and cancelled those claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party1 may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Although not titled as such, we interpret Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response as a request for adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for judgment against itself is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,244,279; and FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,244,279 are CANCELLED.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,244,279
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.