Energy — US PTAB Patent Cases
107 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 107 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review proceeding as to MidAmerican.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules, limiting its disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
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.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
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 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 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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries IPL and WPL settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,596,517 for those parties.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp’s IPRs against BirchTech were terminated for MidAmerican Energy after the parties settled, with the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates petition the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on a coal‑emissions control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied time‑bar analysis. The Patent Owner seeks a discretionary denial of institution.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information, effectively ending the proceeding.
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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517. They jointly move to terminate the IPR concerning WEC Energy Group, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
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 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 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 involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under PTAB rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar statute and unnecessary duplication with an MDL.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp petitioned an IPR on BirchTech's patents. A settlement was reached with MidAmerican Energy, leading the Board to terminate the IPR for MidAmerican while keeping it open for the other petitioners.
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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against Birchtech Corp. after reaching a settlement with WEC Energy Group. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the patent owner's Director Review request. They argue the petitions are timely, lack real‑party or privity issues, and that the Board is the most efficient forum for resolving the mercury‑control patent challenges.
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.