Short Summary
PacifiCorp and co-petitioners successfully challenged the '370 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that combinations of prior art references like Vosteen589/Starns or Downs-Boiler/Mass-EPA rendered key claims obvious.
Detailed Summary
The Petitioner coalition challenged 18 claims of the '370 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness under 102 and 103 against several prior art references including Vosteen589, Starns, Downs-Boiler, and Mass-EPA. The Board ruled that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, specifically finding that combinations such as Vosteen589 with Starns or Mass-EPA taught all limitations for several claims. Furthermore, the Board accepted the argument that activated carbon injection was a known technique ready for application in the claimed process, establishing grounds for obviousness and moving the case toward trial phase.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in PacifiCorp et al. vs MES, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,913 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art systems.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.vsAtossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS moves to withdraw its IPR petition after a settlement in related Roku proceedings renders the challenge moot.
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.