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
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek IPR cancellation of all 21 claims of Champion’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing obviousness over DuroMax, Elsdon, Parlatore, Hallberg and a lack of structural support for key claim terms.
Multi-Color CorporationvsBrook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
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.