John A. Squires
252 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
252 cases indexed | Page 2 of 9
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in an IPR case, vacating the initial rulings and remanding the matter to the Board. The decision addressed the issue of multiple petitions challenging a single patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01042, allowing Solventum Corporation to challenge Wound Healing Technologies Corp.'s patent 10639404 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01061 was granted by the USPTO, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay on related proceedings.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenging patent 6888181, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited to proceed against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Board denied institution for the IPR challenge brought by Snap, Inc. against Nokia's patent 8175148.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied institution for multiple IPR petitions filed by Union Electric Company et al. against MES, Inc., preventing a trial from taking place.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01119 involving Belden Inc. et al. and CommScope Technologies LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01122 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This moves the case forward to a merits trial.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several IPR proceedings involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will take place.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
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.