Electrical power systems — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging PSLC’s ’857 patent covering backup power source load control, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier microgrid technologies such as Lasseter and Lopes.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO denied Union Electric’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01323, keeping the institution decision intact.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests for two IPRs have been received and set a five‑day deadline for the patent owner to file a limited response, prohibiting new evidence.
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.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.