- 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 - 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 - 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 - 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.