- Early Warning Services, LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wepay Global Payments LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · PGR2022-00045 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and cancelled claim 1 based on statutory disclaimers; alternatively, it held claim 1 unpatentable on every asserted ground.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“first embodiment, including Figures 1 and 2. Ex. 1106; Paper 32, 2. On January 26, 2023, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the second embodiment, including Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1107; Paper 32, 2. Patent Owner successfully paid the statutory disclaimer fees in connection with both disclaimers. Ex. 1106, 4; Ex. 1107, 4; Paper 32, 2–3. Based on the information presented, we find that Patent Owner, by disclaiming all figures and embodiments described in the ’702 patent, has disclaimed the entire scope of the sole design claim at issue, such that no challenged claim remains in this proceeding. Specifically, in that regard, the ’702 patent claims and describes two embodiments, where the first embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, and the second embodiment is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1001, code (57). The statutory disclaimers, taken together, disclaim both embodiments and all five figures set forth in the ’702 patent. Exs. 1106, 1107. Accordingly, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner based on the disclaimers is warranted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(b)(1), 42.73(b)(2); Paper 32, 3.8” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In particular, we find that Reddy discloses a design having substantially the same overall appearance as the claimed design, as shown in Petitioner’s comparison illustration reproduced below. Paper 22, 10 (citing Pet. 63). The above illustration compares the claimed design in the upper half to Reddy’s design in the lower half. Both designs include an image of a Three Square Arrangement9 followed by an image of “a $0.00 in practically identical style and font.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Pet. 64). We determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence, moreover, “that ‘the overall visual effect of the claimed design,’ when compared to ‘the design disclosed in Reddy[,] would be substantially the same to an ordinary observer.’” Id. at 11 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); Pet. 64–67 (and evidence cited therein). Based on the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner and find that “there is no material difference” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“To the extent “any ‘slightly different spacing of the squares,’ as between the claimed and prior art designs,” is not de minimus, we find “that the ordinary designer would have modified Reddy’s design to mirror the claimed design” in order “to increase the amount of data” contained in the code. Paper 22, 13 (quoting Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97)). The ordinary designer, considering Reddy alone, “would find the claimed ‘design as a whole has substantially the same overall visual appearance as the Reddy design,’ as so modified.” Id. (quoting Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99)). Based on the full trial record, we determine that Reddy renders the challenged claim unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenUnpatentable
“We conclude that Patent Owner has forfeited any arguments opposing the information advanced in the Petition with respect to the other asserted grounds of invalidity. We adopt the reasoning set forth in the Petition with respect to those grounds. See Pet. 23–45 (arguments and evidence directed to publication and accessibility of SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent), 73–88 (arguments and evidence directed to the grounds that assert SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent). On this record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of the challenged claim would have been obvious based on the other grounds asserted in the Petition. Id.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Early Warning Services, LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wepay Global Payments LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · PGR2022-00031 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Adverse judgment
Adverse judgment was entered after Patent Owner disclaimed the sole claim; alternatively, the claim was held unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“On October 5, 2022, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the first embodiment, including Figures 1 and 2. Ex. 1106; Paper 32, 2. On January 26, 2023, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the second embodiment, including Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1107; Paper 32, 2. Patent Owner successfully paid the statutory disclaimer fees in connection with both disclaimers. Ex. 1106, 4; Ex. 1107, 4; Paper 32, 2–3. Based on the information presented, we find that Patent Owner, by disclaiming all figures and embodiments described in the ’702 patent, has disclaimed the entire scope of the sole design claim at issue, such that no challenged claim remains in this proceeding. Specifically, in that regard, the ’702 patent claims and describes two embodiments, where the first embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, and the second embodiment is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1001, code (57). The statutory disclaimers, taken together, disclaim both embodiments and all five figures set forth in the ’702 patent. Exs. 1106, 1107. Accordingly, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner based on the disclaimers is warranted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(b)(1), 42.73(b)(2); Paper 32, 3.8” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In particular, we find that Reddy discloses a design having substantially the same overall appearance as the claimed design, as shown in Petitioner’s comparison illustration reproduced below. Paper 22, 10 (citing Pet. 63). The above illustration compares the claimed design in the upper half to Reddy’s design in the lower half. Both designs include an image of a Three Square Arrangement9 followed by an image of “a $0.00 in practically identical style and font.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Pet. 64). We determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence, moreover, “that ‘the overall visual effect of the claimed design,’ when compared to ‘the design disclosed in Reddy[,] would be substantially the same to an ordinary observer.’” Id. at 11 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); Pet. 64–67 (and evidence cited therein). Based on the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner and find that “there is no material difference” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“To the extent “any ‘slightly different spacing of the squares,’ as between the claimed and prior art designs,” is not de minimus, we find “that the ordinary designer would have modified Reddy’s design to mirror the claimed design” in order “to increase the amount of data” contained in the code. Paper 22, 13 (quoting Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97)). The ordinary designer, considering Reddy alone, “would find the claimed ‘design as a whole has substantially the same overall visual appearance as the Reddy design,’ as so modified.” Id. (quoting Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99)). Based on the full trial record, we determine that Reddy renders the challenged claim unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - General Electric Company v. United Technologies CorporationAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-00431 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board denied termination and entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it disclaimed the only claim remaining in the trial, claim 9.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDecided for petitioner
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” Id. § 42.73(b)(2). That is the case here, where Patent Owner has disclaimed claim 9, the only claim remaining in the present trial. Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,695,920 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01002 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Signal IP’s request for adverse judgment after cancellation of all claims remaining in the trial: claims 8–11, 13, 15, and 17.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“(b) Request for adverse judgment. A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . . (2) Cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,775,601 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2016 · IPR2015-00941 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Signal IP after cancellation of all challenged claims 8–11, 13, 15, and 17.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“(b) Request for adverse judgment. A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . .” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,775,601 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. / Honda Of Amercia Mfg., Inc. et al. v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 24, 2015 · IPR2015-01005 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26-29, 33, and 34 after cancellation and disclaimer left no trial claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under the Rules, actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, claims 21, 26, and 28 of the ’486 patent were cancelled in Reexamination Certificate US 6,434,486 C1 (Ex. 2004), and Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent (Ex. 2005). 1 Patent Owner filed copies of the reexamination certificate and statutory disclaimer referenced in its Updated Notices as Exhibits 2004 and 2005, respectively. Paper 11, 2. Because Patent Owner disclaimed, inter alia, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 27, 29, 33, and 34 of the ’486 patent, constituting all of the claims involved in this trial that had not already been cancelled in the reexamination certificate, we construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for entry of adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,434,486 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 24, 2015 · IPR2015-00890 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 21, 23, 26–28, 30, 34, and 35 after cancellation and disclaimer left no instituted claims remaining.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under the Rules, actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Here, claims 21, 26, and 28 of the ’486 patent were cancelled in Reexamination Certificate US 6,434,486 C1 (Ex. 2004), and Patent Owner subsequently disclaimed, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, claims 1, 2, 6–9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent (Ex. 2005). 1 Patent Owner filed copies of the reexamination certificate and statutory disclaimer referenced in its Updated Notices as Exhibits 2004 and 2005, respectively. Paper 13, 2. Because Patent Owner disclaimed, inter alia, claims 23, 27, 30, 34, and 35 of the ’486 patent, constituting all of the claims involved in this trial that had not already been cancelled in the reexamination certificate, we construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for entry of adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,434,486 - Caterpillar Inc. v. Esco CorporationAdverse judgmentPTAB · Sep 23, 2015 · IPR2015-00409 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against ESCO after it disclaimed the only instituted claim, claim 14, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION 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 disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Claim 14 of the ’472 patent is the only claim for which trial was instituted; Patent Owner has disclaimed claim 14, and consequently, Patent Owner has no remaining claim in this inter partes review. Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and termination of these proceedings is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,689,472 - Arthrex, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · May 6, 2014 · IPR2013-00632 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Bonutti for claims 1–31 after the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. DISCUSSION Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.73(b), “a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” We interpret Bonutti’s cancellation of claims such that it has no remaining claim in the trial to be a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Accordingly, we determine that Bonutti’s disclaimer of claims 1-31 of the ’514 patent meets the conditions for termination of this review and entry of judgment against Bonutti.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,147,514 - Arthrex, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00631 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Bonutti after it disclaimed all challenged claims: 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72–76, 80, 82, and 83.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“II. DISCUSSION Under 35 U.S.C. § 42.73(b), “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” We interpret Bonutti’s cancellation of claims such that it has no remaining claim in the trial to be a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Accordingly, we determine that Bonutti’s disclaimer of claims 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72–76, 80, 82, and 83 of the ’986 patent meets the conditions for termination of this review and entry of judgment against Bonutti.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,921,986
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.