Yang
88 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
88 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.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (11926859) covering heterodimeric antibodies. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on written description and obviousness grounds.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10668430) covering mercury removal from flue gas. The Board found Petitioners established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness and anticipation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.
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.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a mercury removal patent (10926218) after the Director remanded the case due to multiple concurrent petitions. The denial was based on following the Director's instruction to prioritize one petition over another.
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.
PacifiCorp successfully challenged 26 claims of Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10926218) related to flue gas desulfurization, leading the PTAB to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board concluded that combining prior art references was an obvious application of known techniques in mercury removal technology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.
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.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
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.