Patent Cases

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,589,225. They jointly moved to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties from the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 3, 2025

PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC Energy Group. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent instituted · Apr 3, 2025

PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent instituted · Apr 3, 2025

The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. This allows Petitioners to proceed with institution.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The Director issued an order supplementing a review decision, limiting the number of parallel IPRs challenging four patents to one per patent.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.

M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED

Madras High Court · 48040615

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.

patent remanded · Apr 3, 2025

Bts Research International Pty Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai

Calcutta High Court · 52802766

The petitioner appealed against the rejection of its patent application, which claimed a method for generating tri-hybrid cells. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing that the hybrid cell fell within the definition of naturally occurring organisms or biological processes. The High Court found this conclusion unsubstantiated, noting the artificial and human intervention required to create the synthetic tri-hybrid cells.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited v.M/S. Tega Industries Limited

Orissa High Court · 105368927

This revision petition challenged an order rejecting a petition filed by M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited (the defendant in the original suit) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerned a patent infringement suit (C.S. No.01 of 2019) where the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court upheld the original order, finding that the suit was properly filed based on prior judicial directions and the defendant's business location.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000832

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH

Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors with specific anodized aluminum support features. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, added matter, and asserting a public prior use right. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement of the patent as amended, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, disclosure orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000831

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, requested a decision by default against the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, for failing to provide security for costs within the time limit set by the Court. The Court held that even where a party's default is evident and unjustified, it retains discretionary power and is not obligated to issue a decision by default. The application was rejected because the written pleadings at the time of default did not permit a sufficiently confident assessment of the contested validity of the patent and the absence of infringement, and the Court considered it more appropriate to proceed with an in-depth examination at the oral hearing.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000830

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH

Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000829

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH

Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 476 616, addressing the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent. The panel separated the UK-related claims and counterclaims into separate proceedings because a fundamental question of European law concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation was pending before the European Court of Justice (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte), and the parties had not had the opportunity to comment on the ECJ's subsequent decision.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000828

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application for an order requiring the Claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP4092759. The court held that the Defendants failed to provide concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost decision in China would be particularly difficult, and that the Claimant's domicile in a non-EU country alone cannot justify ordering security for costs.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000827

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000826

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH

Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000825

Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.