Kristina M. Kalan
58 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
58 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
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.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition against Birchtech Corp.'s '370 patent, finding that PacifiCorp et al. met the standard for reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds. The Board also addressed and rejected arguments from Patent Owner regarding written description and enablement issues concerning bromide compounds.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR on PacifiCorp's claims against Birchtech Corp. regarding flue gas desulfurization technology, overcoming a time-bar defense raised by the Patent Owner. The Board found Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co-petitioners successfully challenged the '370 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that combinations of prior art references like Vosteen589/Starns or Downs-Boiler/Mass-EPA rendered key claims obvious.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.
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 challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The PTAB held that none of the eight claims were obvious over the cited prior art, leaving the patent fully 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.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution’s challenge to the ’924 lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The Board found no sufficient evidence of obviousness over the cited prior art, leaving all five claims intact.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that claims 10-16 and 19 were unpatentable. The Board found insufficient motivation in the prior art to combine references, particularly regarding optimal dopant concentrations for solar cell fabrication techniques.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully instituted an IPR against Greenthread’s 8,421,195 patent covering CMOS devices with graded dopant regions, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
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.