Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. et al. v. MidAmerican Energy Company et al.

The patent infringement litigation Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. et al. v. MidAmerican Energy Company et al. is an Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) consolidating numerous cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs are Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (MEEC), which has since changed its name to Birchtech Corp., and Birchtech Corp.. Birchtech Corp. is an environmental services and technology company that develops and provides patented and proprietary solutions for mercury emission control for coal-fired utility sectors, as well as water purification technologies. The defendants are a group of energy companies, primarily investor-owned utilities, including MidAmerican Energy Company, Interstate Power and Light Company, Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Ameren Corp., PacifiCorp, Evergy, Inc., Evergy Metro, Inc., Evergy Missouri West, Inc., and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. These defendants are largely engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity and natural gas to customers across various Midwestern and Western states.

The technology at issue involves US Patent 10668430, one of several patents related to "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury." These patents cover proprietary Sorbent Enhancement Additive (SEA®) technologies designed for mercury emissions capture in coal-fired power plants. The accused products or services are the defendants' methods and systems for capturing mercury emissions from their coal-fired power plants, which allegedly infringe MEEC's patented SEA® technology. MEEC asserts that nearly 40% of the U.S. coal-fired sector relies on its SEA technology to reduce mercury emissions. The procedural posture of the case is an MDL (Case No. 4:24-md-03132) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, consolidating multiple infringement lawsuits. The venue in the Southern District of Iowa became an MDL to centralize discovery and pretrial proceedings for efficiency given the numerous defendants and the common patent claims, despite some defendants arguing for unique defenses related to individual plant operations.

This case is notable due to the plaintiff's assertion pattern, which targets numerous utility companies across the U.S. coal-fired power sector. While Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (now Birchtech Corp.) is an operating company focused on environmental technologies, its aggressive enforcement of its patent portfolio against utilities for mercury capture technology suggests a strong emphasis on patent licensing and enforcement. The company has explicitly stated its intent to litigate against defendants unwilling to license its technology, and it previously secured a $57 million patent infringement verdict in a similar action in the District of Delaware against other coal industry operators. This ongoing litigation highlights the importance of environmental compliance technologies in the energy industry and the financial implications of patent infringement in this sector.

The patent infringement litigation Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. et al. v. MidAmerican Energy Company et al. (4:24-md-03132) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa is an active Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) consolidating several cases concerning U.S. Patent 10,668,430, among others. The plaintiff is Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., now known as Birchtech Corp..

Here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the litigation:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• December 17, 2024: The MDL, Case No. 4:24-md-03132, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, consolidating patent infringement actions previously pending in the District of Arizona, the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Southern District of Iowa. The asserted patents describe methods for capturing mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants.
• March 18, 2025: Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C) filed its Initial Infringement Contentions, identifying 116 patent claims across six patents that are allegedly infringed.
• May 22, 2025: The Court denied Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Supplemental Infringement Contentions and Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for Defendants' Invalidity Contentions, finding ME2C's initial contentions sufficient for notice purposes.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• February 28, 2025: A Case Management Order was issued, scheduling a Markman hearing for December 15, 2025.
• May 22, 2025: Defendants' Motions to Stay the case pending decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court indicated it would not impose a stay before the PTAB decided whether to institute review.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of the current date, no Markman order or claim construction rulings have been issued in this MDL. A Markman hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2025.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• The filing of Initial Infringement Contentions on March 18, 2025, and the subsequent denial of defendants' motion to compel more specific contentions on May 22, 2025, represent significant early discovery milestones, establishing the scope of the infringement claims moving forward.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The MDL is in its pre-trial phase, and no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred in this specific consolidated litigation.
• March 1, 2024: In a related but separate patent infringement case in the District of Delaware, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., et al. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (C.A. No. 1:19-01334), a federal jury awarded Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. a $57 million patent infringement verdict. The verdict was for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,343,114 and 10,596,517, which cover mercury-capture technology. On September 25, 2025, the District of Delaware court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding induced, contributory, and willful infringement of the '114 and '517 patents.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The MDL case (4:24-md-03132) remains open and active.
• October 22, 2025: In parallel PTAB proceedings IPR2025-00717 and IPR2025-00718, Petitioner WEC Energy Group, Inc. and Patent Owner Birchtech Corp. reached a settlement, leading to the termination of these IPRs as to WEC Energy Group, Inc.
• October 21, 2025: MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. also reached a settlement in IPR2025-00422, leading to a joint motion to terminate that IPR proceeding with respect to MidAmerican.
• January 8, 2026: IPR2025-00274, filed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. against MES, Inc. (Birchtech Corp.) concerning U.S. Patent 10,668,430, was terminated due to settlement after the institution of trial.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several inter partes review (IPR) petitions have been filed against U.S. Patent 10,668,430 and related patents by various defendants involved in the MDL:

• January 16, 2025: IPR2025-00274 was filed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. against MES, Inc. (Birchtech Corp.) concerning U.S. Patent 10,668,430. This IPR was terminated due to settlement after the institution of trial on January 8, 2026.
• Around early 2025: IPR2025-00422 was filed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, Interstate Power & Light Company, Wisconsin Power & Light Company, and other petitioners against U.S. Patent 10,668,430. MidAmerican Energy Company, a petitioner in this IPR, settled with Birchtech Corp., leading to a joint request for termination regarding MidAmerican.
• August 8, 2025: IPR2025-01322 was filed by Union Electric Company against Birchtech Corp. (d/b/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.) regarding U.S. Patent 10,668,430.
• October 22, 2025: IPR2025-00717 and IPR2025-00718, involving U.S. Patent 10,926,218, were terminated as to Petitioner WEC Energy Group, Inc. due to settlement with Patent Owner Birchtech Corp.

The PTAB generally terminates IPR proceedings upon the filing of a settlement agreement before a decision on the merits. While several IPRs have seen settlements, the MDL court has, as of May 22, 2025, denied motions to stay the district court proceedings, indicating an intent to proceed with the litigation unless and until IPRs are instituted.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. et al. v. MidAmerican Energy Company et al., based on available information regarding this and related patent litigation.

Plaintiff(s): Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.; Birchtech Corp.

Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C.

This firm has served as patent licensing counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. since 2018 and as lead trial counsel in several patent infringement actions, securing a significant $57 million verdict in a Delaware case in March 2024 for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.. While direct appearances for the MDL 4:24-md-03132 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, their historical and ongoing role as lead counsel for the plaintiff in related patent enforcement efforts strongly indicates their involvement.

• Brad Caldwell

  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Served as lead trial counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. in its patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, resulting in a $57 million verdict for infringement of patents related to mercury-capture technology. He has also been involved in multiple other Top 100 Verdicts in patent infringement cases, including substantial awards against technology companies.

• Justin Nemunaitis

  • Role: Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Presented witnesses at trial in the successful $57 million patent infringement case for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Recognized for intellectual property and business disputes.

• Daniel Pearson

  • Role: Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Presented witnesses at trial in the successful $57 million patent infringement case for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Recognized for intellectual property and business disputes.

• Adrienne Dellinger

  • Role: Vital team member/Trial Team
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Played a vital role in the trial team that secured the $57 million patent infringement verdict for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.

• Aisha Mahmood Haley

  • Role: Vital team member/Trial Team
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Played a vital role in the trial team that secured the $57 million patent infringement verdict for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.

• Richard Cochrane

  • Role: Vital team member/Trial Team
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Played a vital role in the trial team that secured the $57 million patent infringement verdict for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.

Simon Law Firm, PC

• Anthony G. Simon
  • Role: Lead Attorney (for related case transferred to MDL)
  • Firm: Simon Law Firm, PC, St. Louis, MO
  • Experience: Listed as lead attorney for plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. in a case (5:25-cv-04033) filed in the Kansas District Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of Iowa to be included in MDL No. 3132. This suggests a role as local counsel or co-counsel in the consolidated action.

The docket information for 4:24-md-03132 available through Justia Dockets (last retrieved February 14, 2025) does not explicitly list plaintiff's counsel within the MDL itself, but rather references Robert M Evans, Jr. and Richard Bennett Walsh, Jr. representing defendants. However, the other search results provide strong evidence of the firms and attorneys involved for the plaintiff in the broader litigation strategy that led to this MDL. Therefore, the above attorneys are identified based on their documented roles in cases directly related and now consolidated into this MDL. Filings are not sealed regarding counsel appearances as per available information.

This MDL case, 4:24-md-03132, involves several defendants, and their representation is primarily handled by lead and local counsel. Based on available docket information, the following counsel have appeared for the defendant entities:

For MidAmerican Energy Company:

• R. Johnson (role not explicitly specified, likely lead or appearing counsel)

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet, further research needed).
  • Office Location: (Not specified).
  • Experience: The docket indicates R. Johnson filed an answer to the complaint, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim on behalf of MidAmerican Energy Company.

• Glenn Johnson (role not explicitly specified, filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice)

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet, further research needed).
  • Office Location: (Not specified).
  • Experience: Filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, which is related to MidAmerican Energy Company.

For Ameren Corp., Evergy, Inc., Evergy Metro, Inc., Evergy Missouri West, Inc., and Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.:

• Robert M. Evans, Jr. (Representing these defendants)

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet, further research needed).
  • Office Location: (Not specified).
  • Experience: Representing multiple Evergy and Ameren entities in this MDL.

• Richard Bennett Walsh, Jr. (Representing these defendants)

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet, further research needed).
  • Office Location: (Not specified).
  • Experience: Also representing multiple Evergy and Ameren entities in this MDL.

For Interstate Power and Light Company:

• Andrew P. Kemp (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Madison, WI
  • Experience: Perkins Coie has a notable patent litigation practice with experience in various district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, handling over 800 inter partes review proceedings.

Counsel for other defendants (Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, PacifiCorp) have not been explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond the general representation by Robert M Evans, Jr. and Richard Bennett Walsh, Jr. for Ameren and Evergy entities. Further detailed docket analysis would be needed to identify specific counsel for each defendant if they have separate representation.