Short Summary
The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00422 and IPR2025-00423 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican Energy Company following a settlement with the patent owner, BirchTech Corp. The Board cited 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) for termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information under § 317(b). The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and Pacificorp, and the proceedings against them remain open.
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
FUJIFILM Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
SNAP INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
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.