UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v. MES, Inc.

IPR2025-01117

Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. BirchTech’s response argues the Director’s decision is final, the litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests are untimely. The Board is asked to deny the review.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01117
Filing Date
6 June 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00865

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.

patentIPR2024-00795

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.

patentIPR2026-00102

LiftWerx USA Inc.vsLiftra IP ApS et al.

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patentIPR2025-00831

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,587,076, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper under §§314(a) and 325(d).

patentIPR2024-01392

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.)vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.

NormShield Inc. filed a motion to terminate the IPR against BitSight Technologies' patent 10805331.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call