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

IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries IPL and WPL settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,596,517 for those parties.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00281
Filing Date
24 January 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00194

Digital Global Systems, Inc.vsDeepSig Inc.

Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.

patentIPR2025-01250

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.

patentIPR2024-00545

TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.

Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.

patentIPR2025-00294

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

Micron has filed a petition to invalidate claims 6, 7, 10, and 20 of YMTC’s 3D NAND joint‑opening patent, asserting obviousness over Costa combined with Liu, Lee, and Toyama. The petitioner also argues there are no discretionary reasons to deny institution.

patentIPR2024-00921

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.

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