Short Summary
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in five IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,933,370.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review order dated January 26, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Union Electric Company’s petitions to overturn the institution denials in five inter partes review proceedings, one of which concerned patent 10,933,370 owned by BirchTech (MES, Inc.). The Board, after considering the petitions and responses, concluded that no basis existed to reverse the earlier institution decisions and ordered that all requests for Director Review be denied.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. vs MES, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
NJOY, Inc.vsJUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied NJOY's request to challenge JUUL's electronic cigarette patent (RE49114), finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOne-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Osseo Imaging’s 8,498,374 patent covering dental CT densitometry. The petition relies on Arai and Pelc prior‑art references, arguing anticipation and obviousness for all 24 claims.
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.