PacifiCorp et al. v. MES, Inc.

IPR2025-00424

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00424
Filing Date
3 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00254

Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.

The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.

patentIPR2024-01049

Apple Inc.vsS.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.

patentIPR2024-01312

Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.

patentIPR2025-00557

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.

patentIPR2025-00952

Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.

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