- 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 · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,167,043 - 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 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC / Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 6, 2015 · IPR2014-01247 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request to cancel challenged claims 31 and 32 and entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner before institution.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“of claims 31 and 32 (Paper 19). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), cancellation of all challenged claims leaving no remaining claims for trial is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 31 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,781, is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered herein against Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,954,781 - 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 - ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Pragmatus Mobile LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 11, 2014 · IPR2014-00670 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding by settlement before deciding the petition.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The parties have requested that these trial proceedings be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On August 5, 2014, the Board authorized (Paper 8) the parties to file a Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding along with a true copy of any and all settlement agreements between them related to the patent at issue. On August 8, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 9) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. The parties also filed a Joint Motion to Treat the Parties’ Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and Rule 42.74 (Paper 10). The settlement agreement (Paper 11), marked “Confidential,” purports to settle matters between the parties with respect to the patent at issue in this inter partes review. This inter partes review is in its preliminary stage. A decision on the Corrected Petition (Paper 4) has not yet been rendered. The parties have not identified any other USPTO proceedings related to the patent at issue. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,466,795 - Hitachi Cable America Inc. v. Belden Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jan 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00408 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated IPR2013-00408 after settlement, without a final written decision.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The parties have requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On January 22, 2014, the Board authorized the parties to file a joint request to terminate and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential under 37 C.F.R. 42.74(c). Paper 11. The parties filed the joint motion to terminate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 on January 27, 2014. Paper 12. Accompanying the motion, the parties filed a true copy of a settlement agreement along with a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, to be kept separate from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. Paper 13; Ex. 1008. A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on December 30, 2013. Paper 9. This matter, however, is in its preliminary stages. In their joint motion, the parties represent that they jointly requested that the related district court litigation involving Patent 5,563,377, Belden Inc. v. Hitachi Cable America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-1724 (S.D. Ind.), be dismissed with prejudice. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 5,563,377 - Uking Universe, Inc. v. Chang-Kang ChuAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 12, 2013 · IPR2013-00212 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1-5 of the ’583 Patent after the Patent Owner did not respond to the Order To Show Cause.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“On June 11, 2013, the Board issued an Order To Show Cause why a judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) cancelling claims 1-5 of the ´583 Patent should not be entered (Order To Show Cause). The Patent Owner was given one month from the date of the Order To Show Cause to file a response.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,052,583
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.