Environmental engineering — US PTAB Patent Cases
31 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 31 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates contest the patent owner’s request for a director review of the IPR, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and unencumbered by third‑party interests.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the patent owner’s request for Director Review of IPR2025‑00718, arguing procedural errors, misstatements in prosecution, and that the PTAB is the proper forum. The petition seeks denial of the Director’s discretionary denial under §315(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the institution of an IPR covering mercury‑control technology, arguing that the matter is already efficiently litigated in an MDL. The petition claims the Board’s proceeding would duplicate effort and waste resources.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.
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.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that blocked its IPR against MES’s ‘370 mercury‑removal patent. The petitioner contends the patent is invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds and cites multiple prior‑art references.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric requests Director Review of a Board denial, arguing the ‘430 mercury‑removal patent is invalid for lack of priority, written description, and obviousness. The petition cites extensive prior art and warns that settlements are being used to avoid a merits decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial of its IPR petition challenging MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the patent is invalid on multiple grounds.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed a petition to invalidate BirchTech’s 10,343,114 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑30.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director's discretionary denial of an IPR on MES’s ‘225 patent covering mercury control technologies, arguing the petitions are timely, there are no real parties in interest, and the PTAB is the proper forum.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the Director erred in referring the petition and that the patent’s prosecution contained material misstatements. They seek denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, emphasizing PTAB efficiency over the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing that the existing MDL already handles the dispute efficiently. The petition highlights duplicative effort and potential abuse of discretion by the Board.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing that the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide its validity and seeking denial of the patent owner's Director Review request.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the Director’s discretionary denial request and affirm institution of their IPRs challenging a mercury‑control patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner's request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and free of undisclosed parties.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.
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.