US PTAB IP Litigation

MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.

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.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 3, 2025

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.

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.

patent instituted · Apr 3, 2025

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.

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 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.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 2, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00030

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Court decision.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00030

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.

Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.

· IPR2025-00511

Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00560

Court decision.