Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00278 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, and WEC Energy Group submitted an authorized response to Birchtech Corp.'s Director Review request. The petitioners contend that the Director correctly referred the petition, that the challenges are not barred by the one‑year time limit, and that no unnamed parties or privies are involved. They further argue that the PTAB, not the MDL court, is best suited to handle the validity issues, especially given the lack of settled expectations for the patent owner and the efficiency of consolidating schedules across related IPRs. Settlement agreements with earlier petitioners are noted, and the petitioners seek denial of the Director Review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. vs MES, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd.vsConverter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.