Patent Cases

patent denied · Mar 24, 2025

TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS

1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) MAGUIN SAS 2, rue Pierre Semard 0280

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00774

Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 24, 2025

Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent denied · Mar 24, 2025

MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00774

The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00777

Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Court decision.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 24, 2025

MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Court decision.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00777

Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.

patent instituted · Mar 24, 2025

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-00657

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Google LLC initiated an IPR against Withrow Networks Inc., challenging nine claims related to Adaptive Bitrate Video Transmission. The Board instituted the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Carmel and Mattavelli.

patent denied · Mar 24, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent instituted · Mar 24, 2025

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition against Birchtech Corp.'s '370 patent, finding that PacifiCorp et al. met the standard for reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds. The Board also addressed and rejected arguments from Patent Owner regarding written description and enablement issues concerning bromide compounds.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent instituted · Mar 24, 2025

The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.