US PTAB IP Litigation

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and MidAmerican Energy have jointly moved to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.

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

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR pending settlement.

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

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules, seeking to terminate the IPR while protecting commercial terms.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.

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

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner BirchTech jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential and terminate the IPR, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates settled an IPR against BirchTech, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for two petitioners while keeping the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates seek PTAB Director review to block an IPR on their mercury‑control patent, arguing the Board’s institution is inefficient and its privity analysis is legally flawed.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries settled with Birchtech, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR as to those petitioners while the case remains open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was deemed business‑confidential.

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00604

Xencor, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Merus N.V.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,358,286 covering bispecific antibodies. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lazar, Arathoon, and Cabrera, and argues against discretionary denial.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00598

Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00605

Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00605

Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (11926859) covering heterodimeric antibodies. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on written description and obviousness grounds.

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00604

Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00598

Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10668430) covering mercury removal from flue gas. The Board found Petitioners established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness and anticipation.

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

patent denied · Nov 2, 2025

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.

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

The PTAB denied the Patent Owner's request for Director Review, remanding the cases to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses in IPR2025-00423.

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

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech's patents, instructing the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings into a single petition per patent if RPI requirements are met.

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

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.

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