- 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 - Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00239 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on Petitioner's unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution 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
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,164,942 - Pgr2026-00022Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 23, 2026 · PGR2026-00022 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Institution
Institution of post-grant review was denied because the petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“NOTICE 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: IPR2026-00233 PGR2026-00026 PGR2026-00027 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, institution of post-grant review is denied in the following proceeding:” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 12,274,481 - Ipr2026-00183Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00183 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00183 after finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,539,663 - Ipr2026-00175Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00175 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Institution of IPR2026-00175 was denied because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00175 IPR2026-00183 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of the merits,” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,338,189 - Ipr2026-00243Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00243 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00243 after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,154,652 - Ipr2026-00241Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00241 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00241 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,998,017 - Ipr2026-00240Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00240 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00240 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,201,834 - Ipr2026-00192Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00192 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
Institution of IPR2026-00192 was denied because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IPR2026-00253 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00192” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 12,143,606 - Ipr2026-00252Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00252 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The notice lists IPR2026-00252 among proceedings denied institution after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00212 IPR2026-00252 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,185,268
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.