John A. Squires
252 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
252 cases indexed | Page 7 of 9
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
The USPTO Office issued a notice detailing multiple institution decisions across various IPR and PGR proceedings.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the Patent Owner's request for review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech Corp., instructing the Board to limit parallel proceedings for each patent based on RPI requirements following a PacifiCorp precedent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution for several IPR petitions filed by Snap Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy, meaning no trial will proceed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01206 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. However, all related proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01207 after the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard, but all related proceedings are currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01208 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review of related cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01209 after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01215, allowing Apple Inc. to challenge Vampire Labs' patent 8358103.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01220, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to proceed against Credo Technology Group regarding patent 11032111.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
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.