- 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 - Parhelion, Inc. v. Streamlight, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Aug 31, 2020 · PGR2020-00062 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Streamlight and cancelled all challenged claims, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 18, 20–24, 26–28, and 31, on the Patent Owner’s request.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation or disclaimer of one or more claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial suffices as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Board is permitted to enter adverse judgment at any time in a proceeding, including prior to an institution decision. Cf. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision.”).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,378,702 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00948 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s adverse-judgment motion, entered judgment against Patent Owner, and cancelled claims 2, 22, 23, and 25.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and it did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,370,371 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00947 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,061,551 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00946 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 82, 90, and 91.
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). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 B1 (“the ’518 patent”). Paper 1. ParkerVision, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on September 24, 2014. Paper 7. On December 18, 2014, we instituted this inter partes review of claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent. Paper 8.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,266,518 - 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
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.