- Cbm2015-00179OtherPTAB · Feb 17, 2017 · CBM2015-00179 · CBM · Final written decision
The supplied document contains no decision text, so the claims and grounds decided cannot be determined.
NonePatents in suitUS 7,533,056 - Cbm2015-00133OtherPTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00133 · CBM · Final written decision
The supplied document text contains no decision, claims, grounds, or outcome to report.
NonePatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Cbm2015-00059OtherPTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00059 · CBM · Order
The supplied document contains only a blank unit, so no decision or outcome can be identified.
NonePatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Cbm2015-00125OtherPTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00125 · CBM · Order
Final Decision in CBM2015-00028 & CBM2015-00029
NonePatents in suitUS 7,334,720 - Cbm2014-00171OtherPTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00171 · CBM · Order
The provided document contains only a blank unit; no decision or outcome can be determined.
NonePatents in suitUS 7,912,740 - Cbm2014-00013OtherPTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00013 · CBM · Order
The provided document contains only a blank page, so no decision or claim outcome can be identified.
NonePatents in suitUS 6,982,733 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2014 · CBM2013-00055 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion, terminated the proceeding under the settlement, and did not issue a final written decision on the merits.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“November 12, 2014, the parties jointly requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. Paper 32. With their motion to terminate, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement that they request be kept confidential. Paper 33; Ex. 2007. This proceeding has not resulted in a final decision on the merits. The parties indicate that they have agreed to resolve all disputes between the parties and that all district court litigations involving the challenged patent have been terminated. Paper 32, 2–3 (representing that, in several district court cases, a judgment on the pleadings has been entered finding claims 1–4, 10, and 11 of the challenged patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request that the settlement agreement” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,266,015 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2014 · CBM2013-00056 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding as to all parties without issuing a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 327(a), “[a] post-grant review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” The requirement for terminating review with respect to Petitioner is met. Under 35 U.S.C. § 327(a), “[i]f no petitioner remains in the post-grant review, the Office may terminate the post-grant review or proceed to a final written decision under section 328(a).” Trulia is the sole petitioner in this review. The Board has discretion to terminate this review with respect to Zillow as Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,970,674 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2014 · CBM2014-00026 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement; it did not decide patentability of any claims.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“separate from the patent file. Paper 44; Ex. 2030. In addition, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327. Paper 42. In the joint motion, the parties represent that the settlement agreement filed on October 9, 2014 is a true copy and resolves all disputes between the parties. Id. at 2–4. This covered business method patent review was instituted on May 15, 2014. Paper 25. At this juncture of the proceeding, the Board does not have before it full briefing on the trial issues and the Board has not entered a final decision. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,576,951 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2014 · CBM2014-00025 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Order
The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the instituted covered business method review after the parties settled all disputes.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“separate from the patent file. Paper 42; Ex. 2030. In addition, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327. Paper 41. In the joint motion, the parties represent that the settlement agreement filed on October 9, 2014 is a true copy and resolves all disputes between the parties. Id. at 2–4. This covered business method patent review was instituted on May 20, 2014. Paper 24. At this juncture of the proceeding, the Board does not have before it full briefing on the trial issues and the Board has not entered a final decision. Based on the facts of this case, it is appropriate to enter judgment.1 Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,010,508
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.