- 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 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2013 · IPR2013-00216 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding before institution.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Applied Voice & Speech Technologies, Inc. (“AVST”) filed a petition for an inter partes review on March 26, 2013. (Paper 1.) The Board has not authorized institution of the inter partes review. As no trial has been instituted based on AVST’s petition, this proceeding is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“On July 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the instant proceeding accompanied by a true copy of a settlement agreement and a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. (Papers 14 and 15; Ex. 2001.) The parties indicate that they have reached an agreement resolving the dispute in the instant proceeding and the related litigation. (Paper 14.) They also filed a copy of the Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the related litigation. (Ex. 2002.) The Motion was granted and, as the result, the related litigation was dismissed on July 8, 2013. (Paper 14.) The parties urge the Board to terminate the instant proceeding, as the proceeding is in its preliminary stage and neither party has had an opportunity to present evidence and arguments. (Id.) Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Applied Voice & Speech Technologies, Inc. (“AVST”) filed a petition for an inter partes review on March 26, 2013. (Paper 1.) The Board has not authorized institution of the inter partes review. As no trial has been instituted based on AVST’s petition, this proceeding is in the preliminary proceeding1 stage. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.2” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,572,576
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.