Pacificorp et al

PacifiCorp is a regulated electric utility company founded in 1910 and headquartered in Portland, Oregon. It operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, which is an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The company serves over 2 million customers across six western U.S. states: Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho. PacifiCorp employs approximately 5,000 to 8,000 individuals and reports annual revenues in the range of $5-6 billion.

PacifiCorp is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity. It operates under two main business units: Pacific Power, serving Oregon, Washington, and California, and Rocky Mountain Power, covering Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho. The company owns and operates a diverse portfolio of generation resources, including coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and the largest owned wind fleet by a regulated utility in the Western U.S. Additionally, PacifiCorp manages one of the largest privately held transmission systems in the Western U.S. In February 2026, PacifiCorp entered an agreement to sell its wind, natural gas generation, and distribution assets and infrastructure serving customers in Washington to Portland General Electric.

In patent litigation, PacifiCorp functions as an operating company that actively challenges patents. Its sole tracked case, "Pacificorp et al v. Birchtech Corp.," shows it as a plaintiff in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding, specifically an Inter Partes Review (IPR). This posture indicates an operating company proactively seeking to invalidate patents that may relate to its operations or could be asserted against it.

The case "Pacificorp et al v. Birchtech Corp.," initiated on March 24, 2025, involved PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy Company challenging patents held by Birchtech Corp. A notable development in this case was the USPTO Director's decision to vacate initial institution decisions, instructing that generally only one IPR petition per patent should proceed, even when priority date disputes are involved. This ruling emphasized the PTAB's focus on efficient administration of IPR proceedings.