Short Summary
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00718 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218, MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. (formerly Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.) have executed a settlement agreement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. Relying on 35 U.S.C. §§317(a) and 317(b) and the Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, they argue that no merits decision has been rendered and that public policy strongly supports settlement, requesting the Board to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding and reconstitute the remaining petitioners. The motion also seeks to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).
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
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsCold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
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.