US PTAB IP Litigation

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.

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.

patent instituted · Jan 24, 2025

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.

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

patent terminated or settled · Jan 24, 2025

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.

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

patent terminated or settled · Jan 24, 2025

The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group after the parties settled, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp. The settlement agreement is treated as business‑confidential information.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over a emissions‑control patent. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00495

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00517

Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00448

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.

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

The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.

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

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

patent denied · Jan 23, 2025

Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00516

Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.