PacifiCorp et al. v. MES, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in IPR2025-00425 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, which concerns mercury-emissions control technology for power-plant flue gas. The denial was not based on evaluation of the asserted prior-art grounds; after Director-review remand and RPI/privity discovery under § 315(b), the Board followed the supplemental Director-review instruction to maintain at most one IPR against the patent and instituted the companion IPR2025-00424 instead.
Why It Matters
Practitioners filing multiple petitions should expect the Board, especially after Director involvement, to hold petitioners to their petition-ranking/explanation and maintain only one proceeding even if more than one petition was initially instituted. A companion institution can effectively moot a second petition without a merits analysis.
- Anticipation and prior art (§ 102) →
- Obviousness (§ 103) →
- Claim construction →
- PTAB discretionary denial →
- PTAB Director Review →
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026In re Medical Components, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026In re Gomez
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026NCS Multistage Inc. v. TCO Group AS
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Service, Inc.
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 9, 2026Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.