Director Squires Just Closed A Door Nobody Knew Existed

Authored by Babak Akhlaghi on October 25, 2025. Director John Squires made his first move, and most patent practitioners missed what just happened.

In his inaugural Director Review decision, Director Squires didn’t just reverse the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling. He terminated the entire inter partes review. See, Interactive Communications Int’l, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc., IPR2024-00465.

That distinction matters more than you think.

The Jurisdictional Trap

When you terminate an IPR, there’s no final written decision to appeal.

The Federal Circuit only has jurisdiction over final written decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 319. By terminating rather than issuing a final decision, Squires essentially closed the door. The petitioner can’t appeal to the Federal Circuit because there’s nothing to appeal.

The challenge just ends.

The petitioner could try filing a new IPR petition, but that faces estoppel issues and the same evidence problems that sank them the first time. The patent holder wins by default.

What Made This Extraordinary

The case involved expert testimony from Michael Hutton, the patent challenger’s expert on obviousness.

The Board acknowledged Mr.  Hutton’s testimony had problems. They found his explanation about equating “Szrek’s cash register” with a broader “point of sale” not credible. But they tried to work around it by limiting their analysis to just one configuration shown in Exhibit 2050.

Director Squires saw that as cherry-picking, I believe.

The Board wrote that Hutton’s problematic testimony was “the only testimony by Mr. Hutton that we do not find credible.” They treated the inconsistencies as going to weight, not admissibility.

But Director Squires identified a second fatal flaw. Hutton first testified that Exhibit 2050 didn’t represent his proposed combination. Then he reversed himself and claimed it did.

That’s not clarification. That’s contradicting yourself on what modification you’re even proposing.

The Fruit of Poisonous Tree

I keep coming back to the fruit of poisonous tree doctrine.

Once the foundation testimony is compromised by flip-flopping on the core technical proposal, everything built on it collapses. This wasn’t impeachment on a peripheral detail. Hutton’s inconsistency went directly to motivation to combine, the heart of the obviousness rejection.

When your expert can’t consistently identify what combination he’s advocating for, you don’t have a reliable basis for obviousness.

The Board tried to rehabilitate parts of Hutton’s testimony. Director Squires held that was an abuse of discretion. You can’t salvage an expert who’s contradicted himself on the fundamental question. The motivation to combine either stands on reliable expert opinion or it doesn’t.

What Changes Now

Patent holders will absolutely start requesting termination when they spot unreliable expert testimony. I anticipate we’ll see such requests moving forward.

But termination will likely only be granted in extraordinary circumstances.

Director Squires took particular issue with multiple material contradictions on core technical proposals.

The strategic playbook just shifted. Patent holders facing IPR challenges should scrutinize opposing expert testimony for contradictions on motivation to combine. Not just to weaken arguments, but potentially to terminate proceedings entirely.

And patent challengers need to realize that expert witness preparation now carries termination risk. Your expert’s consistency on core technical proposals isn’t just important for winning.

It determines whether your case survives at all.

Stay Informed with Expert Insights!

Want more valuable tips on navigating patent law and protecting your intellectual property? Join our free weekly newsletter for the latest updates, expert advice, and exclusive content straight to your inbox. Subscribe today and never miss out on essential information that can make all the difference in your patent journey!  Subscribe to our Newsletter