Untitled case

Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed in Kansas District Court Over Mercury Removal Technology

A patent infringement lawsuit, 5:25-cv-04033, has been filed in the Kansas District Court by Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. against Evergy Inc. The case centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517, which broadly covers "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury," focusing on cost-effective methods using sorbent enhancement additives and highly reactive sorbents for pollutant reduction in gas streams, particularly from fossil fuel utilization. Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. is a company specializing in mercury emissions control for the power industry, offering solutions to coal-fired utilities. Evergy Inc. is a major utility company that provides electricity to customers in Kansas and Missouri, operating power generation facilities that would likely utilize mercury emissions control technologies.

The alleged infringing activity by Evergy Inc. is expected to involve its power generation operations and the mercury emission control systems it employs. While the specific accused products or services are not detailed in the readily available public information, the nature of the asserted patent strongly suggests that Evergy's systems for reducing mercury from flue gases are at issue. The procedural posture indicates the case is actively proceeding in the Kansas District Court, with an order from April 25, 2025, noting the transfer of plaintiff's claims against Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. to this court. The presiding judge and division within the District of Kansas are not immediately apparent from the search results.

The case is notable given the "Critical" status and its direct relevance to environmental regulations concerning mercury emissions from power plants. Litigation in this area often highlights the ongoing challenges and technological advancements in meeting stricter environmental standards within the energy sector. The outcome could have implications for other utility companies and technology providers in the mercury abatement industry. Further details regarding the case's specific claims of infringement and Evergy's defense would shed more light on its broader industry impact.

The initial search results indicate a discrepancy regarding the court and parties for case number 5:25-cv-04033.

• Several results (3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13) point to "Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc." in the California Northern District Court, filed on May 8, 2025, and consistently refer to this case with the exact case number and a judge Beth Labson Freeman. This case involves patent infringement allegations related to software and equipment containing Google's intellectual property and trade secrets.
• One result (4) mentions "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc" in the Kansas District Court (which is the court specified in the prompt), also with case number 5:25-cv-04033, and states it was "Closed (04/01/25)". It mentions "Patent Infringement" as the cause of action and "Patent 10,668,430" (not 10596517) in a related PTAB IPR document (8). This result explicitly states the case was dismissed and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
• Another result (5) mentions "Kamara v. TransUnion, LLC et al" in the Iowa Northern District Court, also with 5:25-cv-04033, filed July 1, 2025, and terminated April 17, 2026, but this is a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, not patent infringement.
• A very old result (24) mentions a case transferred to the California Central District Court with 4:07-cv-04033, which is clearly not the case at hand due to the different year.

Given the prompt explicitly states "Kansas District Court" and "Patent 10596517," but the most prominent and recent results for "5:25-cv-04033" point to a California case involving Google and Point Financial related to different intellectual property, there's a conflict.

However, result does mention 5:25-cv-04033 in the Kansas District Court as a "Patent Infringement" case that was "Closed (04/01/25)" with parties "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc". It also explicitly states "Patent Owner. NPE (L)." This is critical as it matches the "Kansas District Court" part of the prompt. The patent listed in the PTAB document (8) associated with Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. is 10,668,430, not 10596517. However, the user provided "10596517" as the patent at issue.

Let's re-evaluate. The prompt specifies "Kansas District Court" and "Patent 10596517".
Result identifies "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc" in the Kansas District Court, 5:25-cv-04033, as a "Patent Infringement" case that was closed on 2025-04-01. It also mentions a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss and transfer to resolve claims against Evergy, Inc. This strongly suggests this is the case the prompt refers to, despite the conflicting patent number in the PTAB context of another patent by the same entity (Birchtech Corp. f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.).

Let's check the PTAB IPR for 10596517 directly. Result shows an IPR for US Patent 10596517, filed 2025-04-01, with trial number IPR2025-00281, and the opponent name includes "BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY, INTERSTATE POWER LIGHT COMPANY, MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY, PACIFICORP, WEC ENERGY GROUP, INC., WISCONSIN POWER LIGHT COMPANY, ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION, ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC, MHC, INC., PPW HOLDINGS LLC, MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY". This strongly suggests that patent 10596517 is indeed involved in litigation, likely by the same patent owner (Birchtech Corp. f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.), against various energy companies.

The discrepancy regarding the patent at issue (10596517 vs. 10668430) for the Kansas case (5:25-cv-04033) is key. Result mentions "Birchtech Corp. f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al., Case No. Case No. 5-25-cv-04033 pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas" in the context of an IPR for Patent 10,668,430. However, it also mentions this case is "pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas." This contradicts the "Closed (04/01/25)" status from result for the same case number. It is possible there are multiple related cases, or the PTAB filing refers to the district court case for 10668430, and another district court case exists for 10596517, or the patent number given in the prompt is linked to the Kansas case, but the available information associates the Kansas case with a different patent.

Given the prompt's strong assertion of the Kansas District Court and patent 10596517, and the information from and:

• Case 5:25-cv-04033 in the Kansas District Court did exist and involved "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc.".
• It was a patent infringement case.
• It was "Closed (04/01/25)" by a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss and transfer. This means the case was resolved quickly in Kansas, at least against Evergy.
• Patent 10596517 is the subject of an IPR (IPR2025-00281) filed on 2025-04-01, by a consortium of energy companies. This implies active litigation or related proceedings for this specific patent.

The information from listing 5:25-cv-04033 in Kansas as "pending" for patent 10,668,430 from a PTAB IPR perspective seems to contradict the "closed" status for the same case number in. This could be due to the PTAB document's date (August 8, 2025) being after the dismissal in Kansas (April 1, 2025), and it might be referring to the historical filing, or it's a new filing against other defendants not covered by the "Evergy Inc." dismissal.

Let's assume the prompt's core information (Kansas District Court, 5:25-cv-04033, Patent 10596517) is correct and try to find developments for that specific combination. The search results indicate that 5:25-cv-04033 in the Kansas District Court was a patent infringement case, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc, filed in 2025 and closed on April 1, 2025, with a dismissal and transfer. The patent mentioned in the PTAB document for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and this case number is 10,668,430, not 10596517. However, 10596517 does have a corresponding IPR (IPR2025-00281) filed on the same date (April 1, 2025) against multiple energy companies, implying active assertions.

It's crucial to clarify if 5:25-cv-04033 in Kansas actually involved 10596517, or if it involved 10668430 as suggested by the PTAB document (which then contradicts the prompt's patent number). The fact that the Kansas case was closed on 2025-04-01 and the IPR for 10596517 was filed on 2025-04-01 against multiple energy companies is a strong correlation. It's plausible that the Kansas case (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc) was one of many initial filings that led to the IPRs.

Given the "critical" status from the prompt, and the closure of the Kansas case (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Evergy Inc) so early, it's possible the "critical" status refers to the overall dispute involving the patent owner and various defendants, rather than just the Kansas case qua Kansas case.

Let's prioritize the specific case number and court.
Case: 5:25-cv-04033, Kansas District Court.
Parties: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (Plaintiff) v. Evergy Inc. (Defendant).
Filing Date: Early 2025 (dismissal on April 1, 2025, so filed before that).
Patent: The prompt specifies 10596517. Result mentions 10,668,430 in connection with this case in a PTAB IPR context. Result confirms IPR for 10596517 by a consortium of energy companies. It's very likely that Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (now Birchtech Corp.) is the patent owner for both, and this case was part of a broader enforcement effort. The prompt is authoritative about 10596517. I will proceed assuming the Kansas case did involve 10596517, or was part of a series of related litigations for which 10596517 is also at issue.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for 5:25-cv-04033 (Kansas District Court)

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):

• Case Filing: The patent infringement lawsuit, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-04033, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in early 2025. The exact filing date is not explicitly stated, but the case was closed by April 1, 2025, indicating a filing sometime prior to this date.
• Parties: Plaintiff was Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (now known as Birchtech Corp.) and Defendant was Evergy Inc.
• Cause of Action: Patent Infringement.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance:

• Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss and Transfer: On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and Defendant Evergy Inc. filed a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss and transfer the case.

3. Claim construction (Markman) outcomes:

• Given the swift dismissal and transfer, the case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage in the Kansas District Court.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance:

• No significant discovery milestones were reported due to the early dismissal and transfer.

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial in the Kansas District Court.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal – the final disposition or the present posture if active:

• Dismissal and Transfer: On April 1, 2025, the court issued an order regarding the stipulation and joint motion, dismissing Defendant Evergy, Inc. without prejudice and transferring Plaintiff's claims against Evergy to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
• Case Status: The case was marked as "Closed" in the Kansas District Court on April 1, 2025.

7. Any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation:

• IPR for US Patent 10,596,517: On April 1, 2025 (the same day the Kansas case was dismissed and transferred), an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition was filed against US Patent 10,596,517. The IPR, designated as IPR2025-00281, was filed by a consortium of energy companies including Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, Interstate Power Light Company, Midamerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, WEC Energy Group, Inc., Wisconsin Power Light Company, Alliant Energy Corporation, Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., Midamerican Funding, LLC, MHC, Inc., PPW Holdings LLC, and Madison Gas and Electric Company. This IPR was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
• IPR for US Patent 10,668,430: Separately, an IPR petition (IPR2025-01322) was filed against US Patent 10,668,430, owned by Birchtech Corp. (f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.), with a mandatory notice filed on August 8, 2025. This PTAB document lists Birchtech Corp. f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al., Case No. 5-25-cv-04033 pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas as a related judicial proceeding involving the '430 patent. This suggests that while the prompt's case 5:25-cv-04033 in Kansas against Evergy was dismissed and transferred on April 1, 2025, it was part of a larger litigation strategy by the patent owner, potentially involving multiple patents and multiple defendants, leading to subsequent IPR filings. The "pending" status in the PTAB document might refer to other related proceedings or a general reference to the initial filing despite the Kansas court's dismissal.

Outcome: The specific case 5:25-cv-04033 in the Kansas District Court resulted in a dismissal without prejudice for Defendant Evergy Inc. and a transfer of claims against Evergy to the Southern District of Iowa on April 1, 2025. The prompt's patent, 10,596,517, is subject to an active IPR (IPR2025-00281) filed on the same date, indicating ongoing challenges to its validity in a parallel proceeding.Here are the key legal developments and outcome for patent infringement litigation case 5:25-cv-04033, covering the requested stages in chronological order.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Filing of Complaint (Early 2025): The patent infringement lawsuit, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-04033, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The exact filing date is not explicitly provided, but proceedings indicate it was initiated in early 2025.
• Parties: The Plaintiff was Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (which has also been identified as Birchtech Corp.), and the Defendant was Evergy Inc. The cause of action was patent infringement. The prompt specifies Patent 10,596,517 as being at issue. While a related PTAB filing mentioned Patent 10,668,430 in the context of this Kansas case, Patent 10,596,517 is separately subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated around the same time by a consortium of energy companies.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss and Transfer (2025-03-31): On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and Defendant Evergy Inc. filed a joint motion requesting the dismissal and transfer of the case.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage in the District of Kansas due to its early disposition.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No significant discovery milestones were reported in the District of Kansas due to the swift resolution via dismissal and transfer.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case did not proceed to trial in the District of Kansas.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition

• Dismissal and Transfer (2025-04-01): On April 1, 2025, the District Court of Kansas issued an order granting the joint motion. This order dismissed Defendant Evergy, Inc. without prejudice and transferred the Plaintiff's claims against Evergy to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
• Case Status: Following the dismissal and transfer, the case in the District of Kansas was marked as "Closed" on April 1, 2025.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-00281 for US Patent 10,596,517 (2025-04-01): An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging US Patent 10,596,517. The IPR, identified as IPR2025-00281, was filed by multiple opponents, including Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and other related entities, on April 1, 2025—the same day the Kansas District Court case was dismissed and transferred. This indicates a parallel challenge to the patent's validity in the administrative forum.
• IPR2025-01322 for US Patent 10,668,430 (2025-08-08): A separate IPR petition (IPR2025-01322) was filed against US Patent 10,668,430, which is also owned by Birchtech Corp. (f/k/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.). Mandatory notices for this IPR were filed on August 8, 2025. This PTAB filing listed Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-04033 in the District of Kansas as a related judicial proceeding involving Patent 10,668,430. This suggests that the patent owner was engaged in broader enforcement litigation involving multiple patents against various energy companies, and that the Kansas case was one component of this strategy, even if it was quickly resolved and transferred.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al. (5:25-cv-04033) in the Kansas District Court:

Anthony G. Simon

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Simon Law Firm, PC
• Office Location: St. Louis, MO
• Experience: Anthony G. Simon is the founding member of The Simon Law Firm, P.C., and has experience in patent litigation, as evidenced by his representation of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. in this and related cases. His firm's website highlights experience in intellectual property litigation.

The defendants, Evergy, Inc., Evergy Metro, Inc., Evergy Missouri West, Inc., and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc., in the case originally filed in the Kansas District Court (5:25-cv-04033) and subsequently transferred to MDL No. 3132 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, are represented by counsel from Belin McCormick, P.C. and Baker Botts L.L.P..

Here is the identified counsel of record for the defendant(s):

• Christopher J. Jessen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Belin McCormick, P.C.
  • Office Location: Des Moines, Iowa.
  • Experience Note: Christopher J. Jessen is a shareholder at Belin McCormick, P.C., focusing on litigation. His practice areas include complex commercial litigation, and he has experience representing clients in federal court.

• Kelsey J. Knowles

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Belin McCormick, P.C.
  • Office Location: Des Moines, Iowa.
  • Experience Note: Kelsey J. Knowles is an attorney at Belin McCormick, P.C., whose practice includes litigation.

• Paul R. Morico

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Paul R. Morico is a partner at Baker Botts, recognized for his extensive experience as lead trial counsel in patent infringement cases across various technologies. He frequently handles cases in federal district courts and before the PTAB.

• Michael R. Reck

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Belin McCormick, P.C.
  • Office Location: Des Moines, Iowa.
  • Experience Note: Michael R. Reck is a shareholder at Belin McCormick, P.C., with a practice focusing on complex litigation, including intellectual property disputes. He has significant experience in jury trials and appeals in both state and federal courts.

• Megan LaDriere White

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Megan LaDriere White is a partner in the Intellectual Property group at Baker Botts, specializing in patent litigation and complex commercial disputes. She has experience representing clients in various technology sectors in federal courts nationwide and before the PTAB.