Short Summary
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00281, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, and Pacificorp filed a joint motion with the PTAB to treat the settlement agreement reached with BirchTech Corp. as business confidential information. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), the parties argue that the agreement contains highly confidential commercial terms that should be kept separate from the public patent file and disclosed only to federal agencies or parties demonstrating good cause. The motion seeks to protect the settlement’s confidentiality while the Board considers the request.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. vs MES, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
AROMA 360, LLCvsAir Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Air Esscentials' fragrance‑diffuser patent, asserting that claims 1 and 3‑8 are obvious over prior‑art diffusers (Goubet, Kaiser, Gao‑2). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
MIM Software Inc. et al.vsEXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc.'s patent (11941817) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Renisch and Zhao.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
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.