John A. Squires
252 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
252 cases indexed | Page 5 of 9
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating the initial rulings and remanding the cases to the Board for a single, efficient path forward.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
The USPTO Board denied the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by AT&T Services against USTA Technology's patent RE47720.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01169), allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial against the challenged patent.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01179 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This decision allows the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR challenge brought by Google LLC against Secure Communication Technologies' patent 11334918.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11443344.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute inter partes review against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11687971.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01189, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Hannibal IP's patent, though the proceeding is currently stayed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review petitions, including one concerning Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation's patent 7704721.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11849337, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with its challenge, though the trial is currently stayed.
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.