Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for IPR2025-00423, a second-ranked parallel petition challenging claims 1–4 and 6–29 of the ’430 patent in chemical/process technology (TC 1700). The denial was not based on prior-art merits; after Director review remanded for RPI/privity discovery and instructed that at most one IPR against the ’430 patent should proceed if Petitioners satisfied their RPI burden, the Board instituted the companion IPR2025-00422 and denied this petition consistent with Petitioners’ own ranking. The Director did not reverse or affirm a merits institution ruling, but directed the Board’s handling of the multiple-petition issue.
Why It Matters
Practitioners filing multiple petitions should expect the Board to hold them to their ranking and may get only one instituted proceeding where the Director has instructed that at most one challenge should proceed. A petition can be denied under § 314(a) without any analysis of the asserted prior-art grounds when multiple-petition management controls the outcome.
- 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.