Birchtech Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Birchtech Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al., involves clean technology provider Birchtech Corp., formerly known as Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C), as the plaintiff, against the utility holding company Evergy, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Evergy Metro Inc., Evergy Missouri West, Inc., and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc., as defendants. Evergy is an investor-owned utility providing electricity to over 1.7 million customers across Kansas and Missouri, operating numerous power plants and extensive transmission and distribution lines. Birchtech Corp. specializes in specialty activated carbon technologies for air and water treatment, particularly its patented Sorbent Enhancement Additive (SEA®) technologies designed for mercury emissions capture in the coal-fired utility sector. The accused products or services are Evergy's operational practices related to its coal-fired power plant exhaust systems, specifically concerning mercury emissions reduction technologies. While the case details initially focused on US Patent 10933370, described as covering "Operational practices for coal plant exhaust systems", it is part of a broader assertion by Birchtech involving several patents related to methods and materials for capturing mercury pollution from flue gas at coal-fired power plants using halogen additives and activated carbon.

The case was originally filed on January 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (4:25-cv-00050). It was subsequently transferred and consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3132), titled In Re: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. This centralization, ordered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, aims to streamline pretrial proceedings due to common factual questions concerning alleged infringement of Birchtech's mercury emissions control patents by numerous coal-fired power plant operators. Although some claims against Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. were temporarily transferred to the District of Kansas, the primary litigation proceeds within the MDL in the Southern District of Iowa, presided over by Judge Stephen H. Locher and Magistrate Judge William P. Kelly.

This litigation is notable as it is part of an aggressive patent enforcement campaign by Birchtech Corp., which has been pursuing infringement claims against dozens of utilities since 2019. Birchtech has a history of successful outcomes, including obtaining license and supply agreements from several defendants and securing a significant jury verdict of $57 million (later increased to approximately $78 million with interest due to a finding of willful infringement) in a related patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court of Delaware in March 2024. The consolidation into an MDL underscores the widespread nature of these patent disputes within the energy sector, highlighting the industry impact of Birchtech's mercury emissions reduction technologies and its determined strategy to protect its intellectual property. Several defendants in the MDL have also initiated inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of Birchtech's asserted patents, indicating potential IPR linkage.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Birchtech Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00050, concerning US Patent No. 10,933,370, has seen several significant legal developments since its filing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• 2025-01-23 – Initial Filing: Birchtech Corp. (formerly Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.) filed the patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Evergy, Inc., Evergy Metro Inc., Evergy Missouri West, Inc., and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. The complaint alleged infringement of Birchtech's mercury emissions reduction technologies and sought damages, costs, legal expenses, a finding of willful infringement, and an injunction.
• 2025-02-04 – Conditional Transfer Order to MDL: At Birchtech's request, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-2) transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to be included in MDL No. 3132. This MDL was established in December 2024 to consolidate similar patent infringement lawsuits filed by Birchtech against various utility companies. The case was formally transferred and consolidated into MDL No. 3132 (Case No. 4:24-md-3132-SHL-WPK) in the Southern District of Iowa.
• 2025-03-31 – Dismissal of Evergy, Inc. and Partial Transfer to Kansas: A stipulation and joint motion to dismiss and transfer resulted in the dismissal of defendant Evergy, Inc. without prejudice. Additionally, Birchtech's claims against Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No. 5:2025cv04033). The joint enterprise liability theories against the Evergy subsidiaries were dismissed without prejudice, except as to Evergy Missouri West, Inc. and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. The District of Kansas case was subsequently also electronically transferred and terminated, with the underlying claims relating to Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. ultimately being consolidated into MDL No. 3132 in the Southern District of Iowa.
• 2025-07-18 – PTAB IPR Filing (IPR2025-01324): Union Electric Company filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01324, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370.
• 2025-11-20 – PTAB IPR Termination (IPR2025-01324): The IPR2025-01324 proceeding, challenging US Patent No. 10,933,370, was terminated.
• 2025-XX-XX – Motions to Stay Pending IPR Denied: In the MDL, several defendants, including Evergy entities, filed or intended to file petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents at the PTAB. Motions to stay the district court proceedings pending the PTAB's decision on institution were denied without prejudice, as the court would not impose a stay before the PTAB decided whether to institute review proceedings.
• 2026-01-12 – Director Review of PTAB IPRs (IPR2025-00687, IPR2025-00688): PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy Company had filed two IPR petitions against U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 (IPR2025-00687 and IPR2025-00688). The USPTO Director vacated the initial institution decisions for these parallel petitions and remanded them to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Director instructed that, absent exceptional circumstances, only one petition per patent should proceed, concluding that this case did not present such rare circumstances. IPR2025-00688 was ultimately not instituted on procedural grounds.

Current Posture:

The case, now consolidated within MDL No. 3132, remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for the remaining Evergy defendants (Evergy Metro Inc. and Evergy Missouri West, Inc.). There has been no verdict on the substantive issues of patent infringement or validity at the district court level for this specific case, as it was transferred and consolidated into the larger multidistrict litigation. The MDL court's future claim construction rulings will be highly significant for all consolidated defendants.

No information regarding specific answers, counterclaims, Markman hearings, or significant discovery milestones for this particular case post-MDL consolidation was found in the provided search results beyond the general statement of initial infringement contentions by Birchtech in the MDL.

Birchtech Corp., the plaintiff in Birchtech Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al. (4:25-cv-00050), is represented by:

• Anthony G. Simon
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Simon Law Firm, PC, St. Louis, Missouri
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Simon is the founder of the Intellectual Property Group at Simon Law Firm and has over 28 years of legal experience in patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and business litigation. He has served as lead trial counsel in hundreds of patent cases nationwide, including against major corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. His firm, Simon Law Firm, PC, has been recognized as a Tier 1 Patent Litigation Firm by U.S. News Best Law Firms in America® since 2013, and he has received numerous accolades, including being named St. Louis Patent Litigation Lawyer of the Year multiple times by U.S. News Best Lawyers in America®. He is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. His firm has a track record of significant settlements and verdicts in patent infringement cases.

The patent infringement case Birchtech Corp. v. Evergy, Inc. et al. (4:25-cv-00050), originally filed in the Missouri Western District Court, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and consolidated into MDL No. 3132. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, where it is now docketed as 5:2025cv04033. An order of dismissal and transfer in the Southern District of Iowa case indicates that Defendant Evergy, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. were transferred to the District of Kansas, and joint enterprise liability theories were dismissed, except as to Evergy Missouri West, Inc. and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.

As of the latest available docket information from the transferred case in the District of Kansas (5:2025cv04033), the counsel of record representing the remaining defendants, Evergy Missouri West, Inc. and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc., includes:

• Justin Nemunaitis
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Note: Polsinelli has a significant intellectual property litigation practice, representing clients in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret disputes.

Additional attorneys may have entered appearances as the case progressed in the District of Kansas, but the provided search results primarily identify Mr. Nemunaitis in the context of filings related to the transfer and stipulations. Further detailed docket searching on PACER for the Kansas case would be necessary to identify all counsel who have entered appearances for the defendants and to ascertain specific roles such as local or in-house counsel.