Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.

IPR2025-00422

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech's patents, instructing the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings into a single petition per patent if RPI requirements are met.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00422
Filing Date
2 November 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00433

Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC

Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.

patentIPR2025-00746

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC

Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.

patentIPR2024-00369

Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.

patentIPR2025-01540

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOne-E-Way, Inc.

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patentIPR2025-00702

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC

Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPR against Mullen Industries' patent 10967270, challenging five claims based on obviousness over Nakamura and Benini.

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