IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 176 of 189 · 5,670 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreements confidential under statutory authority.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp’s IPRs against BirchTech were terminated for MidAmerican Energy after the parties settled, with the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates petition the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on a coal‑emissions control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied time‑bar analysis. The Patent Owner seeks a discretionary denial of institution.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner's request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and free of undisclosed parties.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information, effectively ending the proceeding.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group after the parties settled, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp. The settlement agreement is treated as business‑confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group Inc. after the parties settled, while keeping the case alive for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517. They jointly move to terminate the IPR concerning WEC Energy Group, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over a emissions‑control patent. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings' ’996 patent covering wireless handover and timer‑based power management. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of U.S. Patent 10,596,517 covering mercury removal from flue gas, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ ’281 patent covering wireless handover. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech Corp., instructing the Board to limit parallel proceedings for each patent based on RPI requirements following a PacifiCorp precedent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the Patent Owner's request for review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
M/s.Nico Quality Products v.M/s.N.C.Arya Snuff & Cigar Co.
This complex litigation before the Madras High Court revolves around the ownership and use of registered trademarks related to snuff and cigar products. M/s. Nico Quality Products sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement and passing-off by M/s. N.C. Arya Snuff & Cigar Co., while other parties challenged the validity of an assignment deed. The court addressed multiple suits concerning trademark rights, including declarations regarding the legality of assignments.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns European patent EP 3 646 825. Meril (the defendant) sought a partial stay of proceedings regarding Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and an application for the protection of confidential information, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The presiding judge dismissed Meril's application, holding that Rule 295.d RoP does not provide for a partial stay and that no full stay was jointly requested by both parties.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick have settled their dispute over patent 11,910,926 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and prior Board decisions supporting termination at the preliminary stage.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.