- Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00241 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the IPR, finding Apple's unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court problematic.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning,” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Paper 2, 4 (emphasis added). Petitioner also states, as part of its analysis of the challenged claims, that “Petitioner does not concede that the preambles of the Challenged Claims are limiting.” Id. at 9 n.5 (emphasis added). In district court, however, Petitioner tells a different story, arguing there that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2016, 6, 7, 9, 12. Indeed, Petitioner specifically denotes that “[r]eview of ‘the entirety of the patent’ makes clear that the preamble phrase ‘high speed memory chip module’ contains the core of what the inventors ‘actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims,’ . . . and so the preamble should be limiting.” Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted, emphasis added).” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,998,017 - Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00240 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied Apple’s petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on Apple’s unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notOther
“that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning,” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Paper 2, 4 (emphasis added). Petitioner also states, as part of its analysis of the challenged claims, that “Petitioner does not concede that the preambles of the Challenged Claims are limiting.” Id. at 9 n.5 (emphasis added). In district court, however, Petitioner tells a different story, arguing there that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2016, 6, 7, 9, 12. Indeed, Petitioner specifically denotes that “[r]eview of ‘the entirety of the patent’ makes clear that the preamble phrase ‘high speed memory chip module’ contains the core of what the inventors ‘actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims,’ . . . and so the preamble should be limiting.” Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted, emphasis added).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“IPR2026-00243 are similarly problematic. In its Petitions, Petitioner identifies “input/output unit” as a means-plus-function limitation and identifies the corresponding structure as input/output unit 106 in the challenged patent. See, e.g., IPR2026-00241, Paper 2, 4. Petitioner also asserts “the applied prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims, regardless of whether ‘input/output unit’ is construed as a §112(f) means-plus-function limitation,” and that “Petitioner is not conceding . . . that the ’017 Patent provides adequate structure for the ‘input/output unit.’” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). In District Court, however, Petitioner once again takes a different position, arguing that the claim term “input/output unit” should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation, identifying the function as “performing input and/or output functions with respect to memory,” and asserting that the challenged patent “[l]acks sufficient structure (indefinite).” IPR2026-00241, Ex. 2016, 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for performing input and output operations with respect to memory, much less for performing those operations within any particular voltage range.” Id. at 19. Petitioner fails to adequately explain its different positions here before the Board and those it propounds in district court. See, e.g., IPR2026-00241, Paper 9. Patent Owner well states the issue; that “[t]o the extent § 112(f) governs, then either input/output unit 106 is sufficient corresponding structure (in which case [Petitioner’s] district-court indefiniteness argument fails), or it is not (in which case [Petitioner’s] IPR mapping relies on a structure [Petitioner] itself maintains is inadequate).” IPR2026-00241, Paper 8, 8–9. I agree. Petitioner’s statement that it does not concede the challenged patent provides adequate structure for the “input/output unit” thus only compounds the problem.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,201,834 - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00133 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on the complete record and the petitioner’s failure to present a consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,517,782 - Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01391 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notice vacated, and institution denied because Petitioner took inconsistent claim-construction positions in the IPR and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“For the reasons below, Patent Owner’s requests for Director Review are granted.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s conduct, which ensued following institution, demonstrates that this dispute is less about a litigation alternative, as Congress intended, and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 48 (2011) (explaining that IPRs were intended to provide “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”). Such conduct has negative consequences: It multiplies litigation expense, reduces patent value, discourages innovation, diminishes the integrity of the patent system, and depletes the Office’s resources. Discretion is afforded to the USPTO Director to ensure fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes in a focused inter partes context—as Congress envisioned—as distinct from the broad adversarial context in district court litigation. The Office’s review under Article I is ultimately regulatory; proceedings under Article III are adjudicatory. I would not have instituted these IPRs in the first instance had Petitioner engaged in this strategic litigation-style behavior before institution. Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notice granting institution of these IPRs, and deny institution.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentOther
“Petitioner’s assertion that the term “controller” is not in controversy in these IPRs and so it was not required to construe the term in the Petitions is an inadequate justification for the different positions. As I have stated repeatedly, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently before the Board and the district court. See, e.g., Infineon Techs. Am. Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026) (“[A] petitioner should pick one [construction], and one consistent with its asserted District Court position.”). Failure to do so detracts from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that these IPRs do not implicate Rule 42.104(b)(3). Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires a petition to “[p]rovide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged,” and to identify how each challenged claim is to be construed. The rule continues to state that “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner’s position in the district court that the term “controller” is a means-plus-function limitation undercuts its position that Rule 42.104(b)(3) does not apply here. Further, Petitioner’s citation to Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) as support for its position is inapposite, as the holding in that case addresses when the Board is required to construe a claim term, not when a party is required to follow Board rules. DR Response 7–8.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,758,652 - Ipr2025-01597Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2026 · IPR2025-01597 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director discretionarily denied institution in several listed proceedings; IPR2025-01597 is not listed, so this notice states no outcome for it.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewOther
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,069,337 - Ipr2025-01595Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2025-01595 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-01595 after review of discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedOther
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2025-012721 IPR2025-01532 IPR2025-01565 IPR2025-013842 IPR2025-01539 IPR2025-01569 IPR2025-01423 IPR2025-01551 IPR2025-01594 IPR2025-01436 IPR2025-01552 IPR2025-01595 IPR2026-000023 IPR2025-01437 IPR2025-01553 IPR2025-01438 IPR2025-01554 IPR2026-00025 IPR2025-01463 IPR2025-01555 IPR2026-00026 IPR2025-01509 IPR2025-01564 IPR2026-00027 IPR2025-01511 1 Although previously referred, this case is now discretionarily denied in view of Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential). 2 Although previously referred, this case is now discretionarily denied in view of Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential).” slip op. at 1
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2025-012721 IPR2025-01532 IPR2025-01565 IPR2025-013842 IPR2025-01539 IPR2025-01569 IPR2025-01423 IPR2025-01551 IPR2025-01594 IPR2025-01436 IPR2025-01552 IPR2025-01595 IPR2026-000023 IPR2025-01437 IPR2025-01553 IPR2025-01438 IPR2025-01554 IPR2026-00025 IPR2025-01463 IPR2025-01555 IPR2026-00026 IPR2025-01509 IPR2025-01564 IPR2026-00027 IPR2025-01511 1 Although previously referred, this case is now discretionarily denied in view of Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential). 2 Although previously referred, this case is now discretionarily denied in view of Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential).” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,923,754 - Ipr2025-01318Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2025-01318 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-01318 after review of discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewOther
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of discretionary considerations, the following proceedings will be reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations:” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,984,445 - Ipr2025-01184Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2025-01184 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-01184 after review of discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewOther
“Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,055,169 - Ipr2025-01149Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · IPR2025-01149 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petition in IPR2025-01149 and instituted no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings1:” slip op. at 1
- Director reviewOther
“Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,176,538 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00973 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because the district court case was likely to reach trial first.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewOther
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,462,411
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.