PTAB
Advanced fields
7 decisions · 301msnewest first
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,451,845
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,612,888
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,624,844
  • 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 10,197,224
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 10,394,999
  • 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
  • PTAB · 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

    None
    Patents in suitUS 8,466,795

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.