Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.

IPR2025-00278

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00278
Judge(s)
Christopher M. Kaiser, Avelyn M. Ross, David Cotta
Filing Date
17 January 2025

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

patentIPR2025-00207

Arm Ltd et al.vsDAEDALUS PRIME LLC

Arm and MediaTek have filed an IPR petition challenging Daedalus Prime's multicore cache coherence patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over prior art such as Agarwal, Sinharoy, Blumrich, and Sistla.

patentIPR2025-00222

Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.

patentIPR2025-00880

Hisense USA Corporation et al.vsVideoLabs, Inc.

Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent claims covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior‑art patents (Russ, Robert, Eskicioglu) to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

patentIPR2024-01353

Alamar Biosciences, Inc.vsOlink Proteomics AB et al.

The petitioner failed to prove the obviousness of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7883848 in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,' defining it as selecting associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide that exhibit the detectable trace.

patentPGR2025-00029

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.

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