John A. Squires
252 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
252 cases indexed | Page 1 of 9
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025-00498 (patent 8,803,214). The denial also applies to three related IPRs covering the same patent.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while Generac Power Systems continues as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Director granted review, vacating parts of the Final Written Decision in a Kohler vs. Delta Faucet IPR, remanding claims 10 and 19 for further analysis.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director denied TikTok's IPR petitions against Cellspin Soft, citing precedent that bars foreign governments from participating in AIA proceedings. The decision vacated prior institution orders and terminated the review.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying them because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok v. Cellspin IPRs, denying them because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying petitions because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied IPR petitions filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) against Micron. The denial was based not on patentability, but on YMTC's failure to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Micron by Yangtze Memory Technologies because the Petitioner failed to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest (RPIs).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior denial of institution across several patent challenges.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries regarding patent 11246024. The denial affirms the initial decision not to institute trial.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, finding that the Petitioners' real party in interest (RPI) status was not definitively proven. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues before determining if the petitions are time-barred.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech's patents, instructing the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings into a single petition per patent if RPI requirements are met.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied the Patent Owner's request for Director Review, remanding the cases to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses in IPR2025-00423.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director issued an order supplementing a review decision, limiting the number of parallel IPRs challenging four patents to one per patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. This allows Petitioners to proceed with institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.