Short Summary
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar statute and unnecessary duplication with an MDL.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00278, the patent owner, MES, Inc. (operating as BirchTech Corp.), requests Director Review of the Board’s September 8, 2025 decision to institute an inter‑ partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, which covers mercury emission control technologies for coal‑fired power plants. The owner contends that the Board erred in its 35 U.S.C. §315(b) time‑bar analysis, incorrectly finding the petition not time‑barred, and that instituting the IPR would duplicate litigation already consolidated in a multi‑district litigation, wasting resources. The petition cites case law on real‑party‑in‑interest and privity, and urges the Director to deny institution and grant review.
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
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Headwater’s 9,615,192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references, arguing that the claimed features are obvious. No Board decision has been issued yet.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company
Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving a Pantech patent. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but no new evidence is allowed. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑18 of Wilus’s Wi‑Fi multi‑user uplink patent, arguing obviousness over Kim, Chu and Choi references and lack of written‑description support. The petition requests institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
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.