- Abbott Laboratories v. Newtonoid Technologies, L.L.C.Adverse judgmentPTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00932 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, terminated the trial, and cancelled claims 1 and 4–20.
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). We understand Patent Owner’s May 19, 2025 email as a request for judgment against itself. Accordingly, on the record before us, 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. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s May 19, 2025 email request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is granted;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,392,818 - 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 - 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 - New Bay Capital, LLC v. Virnetx, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 12, 2013 · IPR2013-00376 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted New Bay Capital’s unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding and entered judgment after New Bay abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“an unopposed motion to terminate this proceeding, representing that New Bay is abandoning the contest. Paper 16 at 1. New Bay’s abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4); see” slip op. at 1
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“an unopposed motion to terminate this proceeding, representing that New Bay is abandoning the contest. Paper 16 at 1. New Bay’s abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4); see” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,490,151 - New Bay Capital, LLC v. Virnetx, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 12, 2013 · IPR2013-00377 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted New Bay Capital, LLC’s unopposed motion to terminate and entered judgment terminating the proceeding after New Bay abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“an unopposed motion to terminate this proceeding, representing that New Bay is abandoning the contest. Paper 13 at 1. New Bay’s abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) );” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,418,504 - New Bay Capital, LLC v. Virnetx, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 12, 2013 · IPR2013-00375 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted New Bay’s unopposed motion to terminate and terminated the proceeding after construing its abandonment as a request for adverse judgment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“an unopposed motion to terminate this proceeding, representing that New Bay “is abandoning the contest.” Paper 15 at 1. New Bay’s abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4); see” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 6,502,135 - New Bay Capital, LLC v. Virnetx, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 12, 2013 · IPR2013-00378 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted New Bay’s unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding and entered judgment after New Bay abandoned the contest; no trial had been instituted.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“an unopposed motion to terminate this proceeding, representing that New Bay is abandoning the contest. Paper 13 at 1. New Bay’s abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4); see” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,921,211
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.