US PTAB IP Litigation

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ IPR petition. The petitioner’s request for rehearing, based on new informal survey data, was rejected as unsupported and lacking any APA or due‑process violation.

patent denied · Jan 17, 2025

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00451

AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00433

The USPTO denied Cambridge Industries' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00433, leaving the original denial in place.

patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

patent denied · Jan 17, 2025

Tesla challenges Intellectual Ventures’ IPR on patent 6,894,639, arguing the Board correctly applied claim construction and prior art. The Director is urged to deny the patent owner’s request for review, leaving the institution intact.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025

Tesla’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision was denied after the Board found the petitioner failed to justify inconsistent claim‑construction positions across the IPR and district court.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness and anticipation grounds.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its data‑analytics patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored required consistency in claim construction and the indefiniteness of claim terms, making the institution improper.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under PTAB rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

MES, Inc. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar statute and unnecessary duplication with an MDL.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp petitioned an IPR on BirchTech's patents. A settlement was reached with MidAmerican Energy, leading the Board to terminate the IPR for MidAmerican while keeping it open for the other petitioners.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

The PTAB terminated the IPRs against BirchTech's patent as to WEC Energy Group following a settlement, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and other petitioners.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against Birchtech Corp. after reaching a settlement with WEC Energy Group. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the patent owner's Director Review request. They argue the petitions are timely, lack real‑party or privity issues, and that the Board is the most efficient forum for resolving the mercury‑control patent challenges.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and BirchTech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement‑driven termination.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp settled their PTAB IPRs, leading to termination of the case for MidAmerican Energy while the dispute remains for the other petitioners.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Court decision.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.