Patent Cases

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under federal rules.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The Board granted a joint request to treat settlement agreements as business‑confidential and terminated the IPRs for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light after the parties settled. Remaining petitioners’ IPRs continue.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

A joint settlement between WEC Energy Group and BirchTech has prompted a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,926,218. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317 to dismiss WEC from the proceeding before any merits decision. The Board must now decide whether to grant the termination.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00040

AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.

patent denied · Aug 4, 2025

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00040

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a mercury removal patent (10926218) after the Director remanded the case due to multiple concurrent petitions. The denial was based on following the Director's instruction to prioritize one petition over another.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against MES, Inc.'s patent (10926218) regarding pollutant removal from flue gas. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation and obviousness grounds based on multiple prior art references.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp successfully challenged 26 claims of Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10926218) related to flue gas desulfurization, leading the PTAB to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board concluded that combining prior art references was an obvious application of known techniques in mercury removal technology.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims against Birchtech Corp.'s patent. The grounds for unpatentability centered on obviousness (103) based on combining prior art related to pollutant removal from flue gas.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent pending · Aug 4, 2025

The Director granted review of institution decisions in an IPR case, vacating the initial rulings and remanding the matter to the Board. The decision addressed the issue of multiple petitions challenging a single patent.

Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 120550771

Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000488

Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 RoP for a further written pleading, holding that the front-loaded procedure under the Rules of Procedure does not permit the introduction of new infringement readings at this stage of the proceedings.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000487

Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000486

STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)

This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000485

Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000484

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000483

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000482

N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH

N.J Diffusion SARL, a French company and holder of European patent EP 2 404 516 relating to wigs and hairpieces, brought an infringement action against German competitor Gisela Mayer GmbH before the Local Division of Paris. N.J Diffusion alleged both literal and equivalent infringement of claims 1-4 and 7-9 of the patent, seeking 300,000 euros in provisional damages. The court rejected all of N.J Diffusion's infringement claims, finding no literal or equivalent infringement, and ordered N.J Diffusion to bear all costs, with Gisela Mayer's cost claim fixed at 50,000 euros to be added to N.J Diffusion's insolvency estate following its judicial reorganization.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000481

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000480

A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sinocare Inc.

This order concerns two consolidated provisional measures proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in which Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought interim relief against Menarini and Sinocare regarding the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, alleging infringement of European patents EP3988471 and EP4344633. Menarini filed Rule 9 applications seeking postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, arguing insufficient time for a fair trial. The court dismissed the applications as unfounded, finding no special circumstances warranting postponement, and confirmed the oral hearing date while setting deadlines for the filing of Objections.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000479

MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Unified Patent Court decision.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000478

Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.