Short Summary
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against BirchTech's patent as to WEC Energy Group following a settlement, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and other petitioners.
Detailed Summary
In a procedural order dated October 23, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00274, IPR2025-00278, IPR2025-00280, and IPR2025-00281 as to WEC Energy Group Inc. after the parties filed a settlement agreement and requested that the agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board found good cause to keep the settlement confidential and determined that no final written decision was required because the merits had not been decided. The termination applies only to WEC Energy Group, leaving the proceedings active for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, and PacificCorp.
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
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
DISH Network L.L.C. et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
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.