- Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00163 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner on claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–25 after those claims were statutorily disclaimed.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“indicating that all challenged claims had been disclaimed, requesting adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), and entering the respective Disclaimer, dated November 16, 2022, into the record of this proceeding as Exhibit 2020. Paper 18. Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–25 means that Patent Owner has no claims remaining in the present proceeding and adverse judgement is therefore appropriate. II. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15– 25 of the ’647 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,243,647 - 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 - Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 3, 2022 · IPR2021-01469 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment, entering judgment against it on claims 9, 10, 19, and 26.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Adverse Judgment. ORDER It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for adverse judgment (Paper 16) is GRANTED, and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 9, 10, 19, and 26 of the ’790 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,817,790 - Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jun 13, 2022 · IPR2021-00969 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Adverse judgment
After Patent Owner disclaimed all claims, the Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and terminated the IPR.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Our rules state that “disclaimer of a claim such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial” is “construed to be a request for adverse judgment.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Patent Owner disclaimed all of the claims of the ’932 patent, and no claims remain in this proceeding. Therefore, adverse judgment is appropriate. See id.; see also Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Rule 42.73(b)] gives the Board authority to construe a patent owner’s actions as a request for an adverse judgment.”).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,977,932 - 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 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. West View Research, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00123 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted West View’s request for adverse judgment and canceled claims 22, 42, 75, and 77 after the patent owner requested their cancellation.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include, among other things, cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). West View has requested that we cancel claims 22, 42, 75, and 77, which are all of the remaining challenged claims involved in this trial. Given that West View has no remaining claims in this trial, entry of adverse judgment against West View and cancellation of all of the challenged claims of the ’037 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,719,037 - 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 - PTAB · Apr 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01469 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Gold Charm Limited and ordered claims 1 and 5 cancelled after Patent Owner abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner has requested to abandon the contest, which would be construed as a request for adverse judgment even apart from Patent Owner’s explicit request for adverse judgment. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1 and 5 of the ʼ163 patent are appropriate. Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,870,163
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.