Energy — US PTAB Patent Cases
30 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 30 total
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for FERVO ENERGY CO.'s IPR challenge against Ormat Technologies, Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial was based on deficiencies in showing obviousness over prior art references like Rinaldi and Swenson.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the Patent Owner's request for review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech Corp., instructing the Board to limit parallel proceedings for each patent based on RPI requirements following a PacifiCorp precedent.
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.
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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech's patents, instructing the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings into a single petition per patent if RPI requirements are met.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied the Patent Owner's request for Director Review, remanding the cases to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses in IPR2025-00423.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director issued an order supplementing a review decision, limiting the number of parallel IPRs challenging four patents to one per patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. This allows Petitioners to proceed with institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
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 Director granted review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating the initial rulings and remanding the cases to the Board for a single, efficient path forward.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
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 Director granted review of institution decisions in an IPR case, vacating the initial rulings and remanding the matter to the Board. The decision addressed the issue of multiple petitions challenging a single patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.
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.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
FERVO ENERGY CO. challenges Ormat Technologies' patent (7320221) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over multiple combinations of geothermal and hydrocarbon prior art. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on references including Rinaldi, Mims, and Swenson.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC has filed an opening petition challenging Shoals Technologies Group's solar power patents on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed lead assembly configurations are merely conventional combinations of known wiring and molding techniques found in multiple prior art references.
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.