US PTAB IP Litigation

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.

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

BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the Director’s discretionary denial request and affirm institution of their IPRs challenging a mercury‑control patent.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.

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.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.

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

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.

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.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00297

Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

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.

patent denied

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00374

The PTAB notified iRhythm and Welch Allyn that director review requests have been filed for several IPRs, giving the patent owner a five‑day window to submit a limited response without new evidence.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00392

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

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.

· IPR2025-00281

Petitioners and BirchTech have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreements confidential under statutory authority.

patent instituted

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00297

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00293

Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.

MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--

· IPR2025-00398

MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.

Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00276

NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.

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