Avelyn M. Ross
61 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
61 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
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.
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’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.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board granted a joint request to treat settlement agreements as business‑confidential and terminated the IPRs for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light after the parties settled. Remaining petitioners’ IPRs continue.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against MES, Inc.'s patent (10926218) regarding pollutant removal from flue gas. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation and obviousness grounds based on multiple prior art references.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims against Birchtech Corp.'s patent. The grounds for unpatentability centered on obviousness (103) based on combining prior art related to pollutant removal from flue gas.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility affiliates of Berkshire Hathaway Energy settled multiple PTAB IPRs, leading to the termination of the cases for the settling parties while the Board kept the proceedings open for the remaining petitioners.
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.
Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
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.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group Inc. after the parties settled, while keeping the case alive for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates.
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.
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.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 8,968,924, covering lithium‑ion battery compositions with discrete carbon nanotubes, was rejected. The Board found no obviousness for any of the five challenged claims, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s IPR challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected; the Board found no unpatentable claims after concluding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments were unsupported.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully challenged the ’282 battery‑binder patent, with the PTAB finding all 16 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over multiple carbon‑nanotube references.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.