Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00278 against U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 B2 (a chemical/environmental technology patent) not on the merits of the prior art grounds, but as a matter of docket management: because the Board simultaneously instituted review in the companion proceeding IPR2025-00274 on the same patent, and the Director had instructed that 'at most one IPR' challenging the '114 patent be maintained, the Board honored Petitioner's own request to prioritize IPR2025-00274 and denied institution here. The denial was thus procedural and administrative rather than a substantive determination that the petition lacked merit.
Why It Matters
When a petitioner files multiple petitions against the same patent and the Director issues a 'maintain at most one IPR' instruction following Director Review, the Board will collapse the proceedings and deny the lower-priority petition even if it was previously instituted — making the petitioner's own prioritization request in its multi-petition explanation a binding strategic choice with real consequences.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY