Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00281 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 (pollution/chemical treatment technology, Tech Center 1700) after separately instituting review in the companion proceeding IPR2025-00280 on the same patent. Consistent with the Director's Supplemental Director Review Decision instructing the Board to maintain at most one IPR per challenged patent, and honoring Petitioner's own request to prioritize IPR2025-00280, the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution of this second petition. No merits analysis of the prior art grounds was conducted.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates that when a petitioner files multiple petitions against the same patent and the Director has instructed the Board to maintain at most one IPR per patent, the Board will hold the petitioner to its own prioritization request and deny the lower-priority petition once the preferred petition is instituted — making the sequencing election in a multi-petition explanation binding in practice. Practitioners should carefully consider which petition they designate as primary, as that choice will be dispositive if the Director imposes a one-IPR-per-patent cap.
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 8, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-08
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 24, 2026Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-09-23
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
- PTAB Director Review · Aug. 25, 2026Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. v. HydraFacial LLC