IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 181 of 189 · 5,670 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under PTAB rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp petitioned an IPR on BirchTech's patents. A settlement was reached with MidAmerican Energy, leading the Board to terminate the IPR for MidAmerican while keeping it open for the other petitioners.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
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.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against Birchtech Corp. after reaching a settlement with WEC Energy Group. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the patent owner's Director Review request. They argue the petitions are timely, lack real‑party or privity issues, and that the Board is the most efficient forum for resolving the mercury‑control patent challenges.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and BirchTech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement‑driven termination.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp settled their PTAB IPRs, leading to termination of the case for MidAmerican Energy while the dispute remains for the other petitioners.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its subsidiaries filed a joint motion with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement with BirchTech Corp. confidential and to terminate the IPR proceeding for MidAmerican Energy.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates moved to terminate IPR 2025-00278 after reaching a confidential settlement with Birchtech Corp. The parties seek to keep the settlement agreement sealed under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of DataFeel’s 12,036,174 patent covering percussive massage devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of written description and enablement. It also argues the Board should not invoke the Fintiv discretionary denial provision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to review PayRange’s 2024 patent covering mobile‑device‑driven vending‑machine payments. The petition asserts anticipation, obviousness, and § 101 ineligibility for all 20 claims, citing Low, Arora, Freeny and Casey as prior art.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PayRange’s 2024 mobile‑payment patent covering vending‑machine transactions, arguing obviousness and patent‑ineligibility. The petition also rebuts any discretionary denial.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking institution of a challenge to all 34 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑snapshot patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.