Judge Profile

John A. Squires

252 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

252 cases indexed | Page 8 of 9

patent denied

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01237

The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

patent denied

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01238

The Board denied institution in IPR2025-01238 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patent denied

Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01240

The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings brought by Amazon against VB Assets regarding patent 11080758.

patent instituted

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01241

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01241 and several other proceedings, allowing the merits phase of review to proceed.

patent instituted

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01242

The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01245

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.

patent instituted

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01246

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 9651533 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.

patent instituted

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01252, allowing the challenger to proceed with the review.

patent instituted

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01253 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01264

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01265

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.

patent instituted

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01267

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.

patent denied

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· IPR2025-01270

Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.

patent instituted

Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01271

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.

patent denied

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01273

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01273 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

patent denied

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01274

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01274 after finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were more likely than not unpatentable.

patent denied

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01276

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for patent 12070691 (ImagineAR), finding that Niantic failed to meet the required likelihood standard.

patent instituted

Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA

· PGR2025-00055

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted

Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.

· PGR2025-00057

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.

patent denied

SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP

· PGR2025-00061

The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.

patent denied

North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.

· PGR2025-00062

The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.

patent denied

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00067

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00068

The PTAB granted institution for the PGR challenge against XiFi Networks' patent 12169756 involving Samsung Electronics, allowing the review to proceed despite a stay.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.

patent instituted

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

· PGR2025-00070

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2025-00071

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.

patent instituted

Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· PGR2025-00081

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings. Several cases were granted for trial based on likelihood of prevailing, while others were denied due to lack of merit or discretionary concerns.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →