Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C), an environmental services and technology company that recently rebranded to Birchtech Corp., initiated patent infringement litigation against Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and a group of associated coal industry companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Midwest Energy specializes in mercury capture systems and technologies for coal-fired power plants, as well as emerging solutions for PFAS clean water technology and rare earth element extraction. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. is a large American insurance brokerage and risk management services company, though the direct infringement allegations appear to be against various coal industry entities involved in refined coal operations, some of which may be related to Gallagher through ownership or service provision.

The litigation centers on technology designed to capture mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The asserted patent specified in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, which generally relates to methods and systems for removing mercury from flue gas. The accused activity involves the use of "refined coal" that allegedly infringes Midwest Energy's patented mercury emission control solutions.

The case, numbered 1:19-cv-01334, was filed in the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation known for its expertise and efficiency in handling such complex cases. Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke has presided over significant aspects of the proceedings. The matter proceeded to a five-day jury trial between February 26, 2024, and March 1, 2024, resulting in a $57 million verdict for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. against a group of coal industry defendants for infringing its mercury capture technology patents. This significant jury award underscores the case's notability, particularly in the context of environmental technology and patent enforcement by an operating company against multiple industry players. Post-trial motions for enhanced damages and interest have been addressed, indicating the case remains ongoing in its later stages.

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. is a patent infringement litigation initiated on July 17, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, bearing number 1:19-cv-01334, has seen extensive legal developments, culminating in a jury verdict for the plaintiff on certain patents, while other claims and patents have been addressed through various motions.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2019-2021):

  • Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and MES Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed the initial complaint on July 17, 2019, alleging patent infringement against numerous defendants, including Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and various CERT Operations entities. The lawsuit asserted infringement of multiple patents, initially including U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, among others like 10,343,114, 10,596,517, and 10,668,430.
  • Following the complaint, various defendant groups filed motions to dismiss. On June 18, 2020, a Report and Recommendation was issued addressing several of these motions, including one recommending the dismissal of MES Inc. as a Plaintiff and granting dismissal for certain defendants on specific issues. Further motions to dismiss were addressed in a Report and Recommendation on May 20, 2021, which was granted-in-part and denied-in-part.

• Claim Construction (Markman) (2022):

  • A Markman hearing was conducted on April 28, 2022. [cite: 5 (previous search)]
  • On June 24, 2022, the Court issued an Oral Order regarding claim construction for the term "combusting a mixture" found in claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225. The Court adopted the Plaintiffs' proposed construction, affording the term its plain and ordinary meaning. [cite: 5 (previous search)]

• Discovery Milestones (2022):

  • A Memorandum Order dated December 12, 2022, addressed a motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' expert reports concerning infringement and damages. [cite: 12 (previous search)]

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2023):

  • In October 2023, the Court ruled on several summary judgment motions filed by the defendants:
    • On October 17, 2023, summary judgment was granted for non-infringement of the '147 patent and some claims of the '114, '147, '517, and '430 patents. [cite: 12 (previous search)]
    • On October 23, 2023, summary judgment was granted for defendants who did not sell or offer to sell refined coal. [cite: 12 (previous search)]
    • On November 3, 2023, the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding no contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) was denied. [cite: 15 (previous search)]

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions (2024-2025):

  • A five-day jury trial commenced on February 26, 2024.
  • On March 1, 2024, the jury returned a verdict, finding that CERT Operations II LLC, CERT Operations IV LLC, CERT Operations V LLC, and CERT Operations RCB LLC indirectly and willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,343,114 and 10,596,517. The jury awarded Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. $57 million in damages for past infringement. [cite: 1 (previous search), 19 (previous search)] It's notable that while U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 was part of earlier claim construction, it was not among the patents for which the jury awarded damages.
  • On May 30, 2024, the Court held a bench trial regarding the defendants' implied license defense. [cite: 3 (previous search)] A Memorandum Opinion issued on June 10, 2025, concluded that CERT failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had an implied license to the asserted patents.
  • Following the verdict, defendants filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for a new trial, which the Court denied in a Memorandum Opinion on November 20, 2025. [cite: 4 (previous search), 6 (previous search)]
  • Plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion for enhancement of damages and pre- and post-judgment interest, which was granted-in-part and denied-in-part on December 17, 2025. [cite: 9 (previous search)]

• Final Disposition / Present Posture (Ongoing):

  • Some defendants settled with Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. prior to the jury trial. [cite: 19 (previous search)]
  • The case remains active as of May 22, 2026, with post-trial proceedings and related opinions continuing through late 2025. [cite: 3 (previous search), 4 (previous search), 9 (previous search), 10 (previous search)]

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • While Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. has faced Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings for other patents, specifically IPR2020-00832 and IPR2020-00834 against U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, and IPR2025-00422 and IPR2025-00423 against U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, no parallel IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings were found to have been instituted specifically against U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225. [cite: 6, 8 (previous search), 15]

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 1:19-cv-01334 (D. Del.):

Lead Counsel

Firm: Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C.
Office Location: Dallas, Texas

• Bradley W. Caldwell (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Caldwell is a seasoned patent litigator, and his firm secured a $57 million verdict for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. in this very case in March 2024, stemming from infringement of patents related to mercury emissions capture technology.
• Justin T. Nemunaitis (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Involved in the plaintiff's patent infringement representation, as evidenced by appearances in docket entries from 2023 and 2025.
• Daniel R. Pearson (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as counsel for the plaintiff in recent docket filings in this patent infringement case.
• Adrienne R. Dellinger (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for the plaintiff in various docket entries in this patent infringement action.
• Warren J. McCarty, III (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as counsel for the plaintiff in a November 2025 docket entry related to the case.
• Aisha M. Haley (Attorney)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for the plaintiff in a November 2025 docket entry.
• Richard A. Cochrane (Attorney)
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as counsel for the plaintiff in a November 2025 docket entry.
• Jason D. Cassady (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney for the plaintiffs in a November 2023 docket entry.
• John Austin Curry (Partner)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney for the plaintiffs in a November 2023 docket entry.

Local Counsel

Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC
Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware

• James M. Lennon (Attorney)
  • Relevant Experience: Serves as local counsel for the plaintiffs in this patent infringement case. His firm focuses on intellectual property, business, and commercial litigation.
• Peter Akawie Mazur (Attorney)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as local counsel for the plaintiff in a November 2025 docket entry.

Here is the counsel of record representing Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 1:19-cv-01334 (D. Del.):

For Defendant(s) Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (and related entities):

• Jack B. Blumenfeld

  • Role: Partner, likely serving as lead or Delaware counsel.
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Known as the "dean of the Delaware IP bar," with 40 years of patent litigation experience in a mix of lead, Delaware, and co-counsel roles. Handles high-stakes pharmaceutical, medical product, biotechnology, computer, software, and telecommunications patent and trade secret cases.

• Brian P. Egan

  • Role: Partner and Practice Group Coordinator for the Intellectual Property Litigation Group, likely serving as lead or Delaware counsel.
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Represents technology companies in patent infringement, trade secret, and other litigation matters, with prior experience as a patent examiner. Regularly acts as lead or Delaware counsel in the District of Delaware and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Anthony D. Raucci

  • Role: Special Counsel, likely serving as lead or Delaware counsel.
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Focuses on IP litigation in federal district court, including patent and trade secret cases. Has been involved in complex IP cases as both lead and Delaware counsel across various technology areas, and has participated in trial teams from initial pleadings through final judgment.

For Defendant Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (In-House Counsel):

• Walter D. Bay
  • Role: Corporate Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary.
  • Firm: Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (in-house).
  • Experience: Manages a global legal team and advises senior management and the company's Board of Directors on a wide range of issues, including regulatory and legal compliance, securities law, corporate governance, litigation, and mergers and acquisitions.