Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C), an environmental technology firm that recently rebranded as Birchtech Corp., has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and several of its subsidiaries, including Interstate Power and Light Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, and Wisconsin Power and Light Company. ME2C is a publicly traded operating company specializing in proprietary mercury emission control solutions for coal-fired power plants, with additional ventures in water treatment and rare earth elements. The defendants are large operating companies within the energy sector, owning and operating a diverse portfolio of utility and energy businesses, including coal-fired power plants across multiple states. The core of the dispute centers on the defendants' alleged infringement of ME2C's patented technologies for capturing mercury emissions from these coal-fired facilities.

The accused technology involves methods and systems for reducing mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal plant exhaust. This specifically entails the use of sorbent injection systems that combine halogen additives, such as bromine, with backend sorbents like activated carbon. Among the patents asserted is U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, which broadly covers "Sorbent injection systems and processes for reducing mercury". This patent, along with others involved in the litigation, shares a common lineage and focuses on improved techniques for mercury capture developed by ME2C's predecessors.

The procedural posture of this case is significant. Originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (4:24-cv-00243), it has since been consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) titled "In Re: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation," MDL No. 4:24-md-3132, within the same court under Judge Stephen H. Locher. This MDL, established in December 2024, centralizes similar patent infringement actions brought by ME2C against various energy companies across different districts, including those in Arizona, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The consolidation aims to streamline pretrial proceedings, prevent inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding claim construction and patent validity—and conserve judicial and party resources. This case is notable due to ME2C's history of extensive patent enforcement efforts, including a previous $57 million patent infringement verdict in the District of Delaware against other coal industry operators for similar mercury-capture technologies, signaling a broad and coordinated enforcement strategy impacting the energy sector and its environmental compliance practices.

The patent infringement lawsuit by Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C) against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries, initially filed in the Southern District of Iowa, has seen several key legal developments and is now consolidated into an MDL.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The original case, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. (4:24-cv-00243), was filed on July 17, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. This initiated the patent infringement proceedings against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, Interstate Power and Light Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, and Wisconsin Power and Light Company. Following the complaint, defendants such as MidAmerican Energy Company filed an Answer to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Transfer and Consolidation into MDL

A significant development occurred on December 12, 2024, when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order, centralizing several related ME2C patent infringement actions into MDL No. 4:24-md-3132, titled "In Re: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation," in the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Stephen H. Locher. The specific case against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries was formally consolidated into this MDL on December 17, 2024.

Prior to consolidation, some components of the case were initially transferred to other districts. For example, on January 10, 2025, the cases against PacifiCorp and Wisconsin Power and Light Company were transferred to the District of Wyoming and the Western District of Wisconsin, respectively. However, these were subsequently transferred back to the Southern District of Iowa and consolidated into the MDL by January 30, 2025.

Motions to Stay Pending IPR

Defendants in the MDL filed motions to stay the litigation pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions on inter partes review (IPR) applications for the patents-in-suit. On May 22, 2025, the Court denied these motions to stay without prejudice, noting that the PTAB had not yet decided whether to institute IPR proceedings and was still several months away from such a decision.

Motions to Compel Supplemental Infringement Contentions

Defendants also moved to compel ME2C to file amended initial infringement contentions, arguing they were too numerous, lacked specificity, and relied heavily on cross-references. The Court denied this motion, concluding that ME2C's initial contentions were sufficient to provide notice of the infringement claims, expecting further clarification during discovery.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been initiated challenging patents asserted by Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., including related patents. For instance, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, among other petitioners, has filed IPRs challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, with trial instituted in those proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-00423). Additionally, IPR2025-00274 and IPR2025-00278 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517, and IPR2025-00281 also challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517, with trials instituted in those cases. While the '225 patent is at issue in the MDL, no definitive outcome for an IPR specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 has been found yet.

It's notable that in one IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00423), Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL) and Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), initially petitioners, settled their dispute with ME2C and were terminated from the IPR. The PTAB has instituted IPR for all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the petition in at least one such proceeding, indicating a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.

Present Posture

As of May 22, 2026, the case remains active within MDL No. 4:24-md-3132 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The Court has denied motions to stay pending PTAB decisions and motions to compel more specific infringement contentions. While IPR proceedings are ongoing for related patents, the primary litigation continues, with the expectation that discovery will further refine the infringement claims.

News coverage of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al., now part of MDL No. 4:24-md-3132, largely frames it as a key component of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.'s (now Birchtech Corp.) extensive patent enforcement campaign targeting the U.S. coal-fired power industry's mercury emissions control practices. Several lawsuits filed in July 2024 across Arizona, Iowa, and Missouri, including the case against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and its subsidiaries, were ultimately consolidated into the Southern District of Iowa MDL in December 2024 to streamline pretrial proceedings. This consolidation strategy, involving patents like U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, is seen by analysts as a "systematic licensing and litigation strategy targeting the U.S. coal fleet" to enforce compliance with EPA mercury control requirements.

A significant backdrop to this MDL is Birchtech's successful patent infringement victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against "CERT defendants" (refined coal companies). A federal jury awarded $57 million in damages in March 2024, a figure that increased to a final judgment of approximately $78.4 million, including pre-judgment interest, by December 2025. Birchtech's CEO, Richard MacPherson, characterized this Delaware judgment as an "unequivocal validation of our patented technology claims" and expressed expectations that it would significantly increase the company's market share in mercury emissions control within the U.S. coal-fired power fleet, potentially doubling it over the next couple of years through new licenses or supply contracts. This highlights the financial stakes and the company's strategic intent behind the ongoing MDL.

Regarding the specific defendants in the Berkshire Hathaway Energy litigation, a notable development occurred in the case against MidAmerican Energy Company, where the parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in October 2025, with each party bearing its own costs. While this outcome doesn't explicitly confirm a private settlement, PatSnap suggests this cost structure "neither confirms nor rules out" such an agreement. Furthermore, Birchtech announced in June 2026 that all inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed against its mercury removal technology patents, which defendants in the MDL had sought to use to challenge patent validity, have been terminated, dismissed, or resolved, with no active IPR proceedings remaining. This resolution of IPRs is a major win for Birchtech, effectively validating its patents against third-party challenges and removing a significant avenue for defendants to invalidate the asserted intellectual property.

Sources

• investing.com
• newmediawire.com
• birchtech.com
• birchtech.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• vitallaw.com
• stocktitan.net
• birchtech.com
• newsfilecorp.com
• patsnap.com
• birchtech.com

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig deeper into the local counsel and any additional plaintiff-side firms.

Let me verify additional plaintiff-side attorneys and in-house counsel.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — ME2C / Birchtech

Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (now Birchtech Corp.; filings in the MDL are captioned "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (n/k/a Birchtech Corp.)") is represented by a two-firm trial team: a Dallas patent-litigation boutique serving as lead/principal counsel nationwide, and a Des Moines firm serving as local counsel in the S.D. Iowa MDL. There is no plaintiffs' steering committee — ME2C is the sole plaintiff in MDL No. 4:24-md-3132 — so this same team carries the lead role across every constituent case.

1. Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. — Dallas, Texas (lead/principal counsel)

Firm profile: Dallas-based IP litigation boutique founded in 2013; reported more than $2.5 billion in verdicts and settlements and named among the top patent litigation boutiques in the IAM Patent 1000 (2024). The firm has served as ME2C's lead trial counsel throughout its enforcement campaign and won the March 2024 $57 million Delaware verdict in ME2C v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. on related mercury-capture patents.

Address: 2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75201; (214) 888-4848. A generic firm address, midwest@caldwellcc.com, is used for service on ME2C in the IPRs.

2. Nyemaster Goode, P.C. — Des Moines, Iowa (local counsel)

Firm-level note: Law.com's "Who Got The Work" reported that the case was "filed July 17 [2024] in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.," confirming the same two-firm structure from the outset. The docket reflects pro hac vice motions granted for Richard A. Cochrane, Justin T. Nemunaitis, and Jeffrey D. Harty on the plaintiff's side, consistent with the above.

3. In-house counsel

No Birchtech/ME2C in-house attorney is identified as counsel of record on the public docket or in the MDL/PTAB filings reviewed. ME2C is an operating company with an internal legal function, but if it is participating it does not appear to have entered a formal appearance — outside counsel is handling the case.

Caveats and cross-checks against the case metadata

• Contradiction flagged (patent count): The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 as at issue. The as-filed Iowa complaint and the court's Jan. 10, 2025 order (ECF 146) describe six patents asserted in the original S.D. Iowa action, and the MDL as a whole involves a larger patent family. The '225 patent is one of the patents in the MDL, but the metadata's single-patent framing understates the original Iowa pleading.
• Firm/name change: All filings post-dating the corporate rebrand caption the plaintiff as "Birchtech Corp. d/b/a Midwest Energy Emissions Corp." Signature blocks and service addresses, however, remain under "Midwest Energy Emissions Corp." in the PTAB.
• No plaintiff liaison counsel: Because ME2C is the only plaintiff in the MDL, there is no separate plaintiffs' executive/steering committee appointment to report.
• Sourced roles vs. inference: Caldwell's "lead trial counsel" characterization is drawn from Birchtech's own press release describing the Delaware verdict; his formal local-court designation as lead counsel in the MDL is not stated in the materials reviewed, though he heads the firm's ME2C team.

Primary sources: CourtListener docket feed for the consolidated Iowa case; Justia/PACER Monitor dockets for ME2C v. PacifiCorp (4:25-cv-00037) and ME2C v. WPL (4:25-cv-00038); ME2C's JPML motion and MDL/PTAB filings reproduced at PTAB docket sources (e.g., IPR2025-00278, IPR2025-00424, IPR2025-00718 exhibits); Law.com Litigation Daily "Who Got The Work"; and Caldwell Cassady & Curry's own case/ranking pages.

I'll research defense counsel for this case and its MDL.

Let me dig into specific defense counsel identified in the docket and MDL filings.

Defense Counsel of Record — ME2C v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, et al. (4:24-cv-00243-SHL-WPK / MDL 4:24-md-3132-SHL-WPK)

Sourcing caveat up front: I could not pull the live PACER docket. The identifications below are reconstructed from (a) Law.com's "Who Got the Work" report on the initial appearances in 4:24-cv-00243, (b) PTAB papers that reproduce or reference district-court filings and identify counsel of record (e.g., powers of attorney, notices of substitution, and exhibits that are verbatim copies of the MDL answers), and (c) PacerMonitor docket summaries for the re-filed PacifiCorp (4:25-cv-00037) and WPL (4:25-cv-00038) actions. Where I could not confirm a district-court appearance, I say so rather than guess.

Important structural point: Under Judge Locher's Order on Motions to Dismiss (MDL ECF 19 = S.D. Iowa ECF 146, Jan. 10, 2025), claims against BHE, Alliant Energy Corp., Alliant Energy Corporate Services, and PacifiCorp were dismissed or transferred, with only IPL and MidAmerican proceeding in the Iowa forum at that stage. PacifiCorp and WPL were then re-filed/re-transferred and consolidated into the MDL as 4:25-cv-00037 and 4:25-cv-00038. So "defense counsel" here spans several defendants with distinct teams.

---

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company (BHE)

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — Benjamin Hershkowitz (New York, NY; USPTO Reg. No. 41,833); Richard W. Mark (New York); Casey J. McCracken. These three Gibson Dunn partners entered appearances for BHE in the original Iowa case, per Law.com's September 2024 "Who Got the Work" item describing 4:24-cv-00243.
  • Experience: Hershkowitz is a long-time Gibson Dunn IP litigation partner (named to Lawdragon's 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers, June 2026); Mark and McCracken are both experienced patent/complex-litigation partners.
• In-house: Natalie L. Hocken, SVP & Chief Legal Officer of BHE, executed the PTAB power of attorney (Sept. 4, 2025) — she is the client-side signatory, not litigation counsel of record.
• ⚠️ Update the team in the IPRs: On Sept. 11, 2025, BHE withdrew Gibson Dunn (Hershkowitz, David L. Glandorf, NoahLani Litwinsella) as back-up counsel in IPR2025-00422/-00423 (and the related '114/'517 IPRs) and substituted Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. (Thomas M. Patton and R. Scott Johnson). The PTAB granted that substitution (IPR2025-00422, Paper 33, Oct. 2, 2025). I have not confirmed a corresponding withdrawal from the district court docket — do not assume Gibson Dunn is out of the litigation.

MidAmerican Energy Company

• Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. — Des Moines, IA office (111 E. Grand Ave., Ste. 301):
  • R. Scott Johnson (USPTO Reg. No. 45,792) — registered patent attorney and trial lawyer; Iowa State (B.S. aerospace engineering), Drake Law. Representative patent/trade-secret trials include Roto-Mix v. Sioux Automation Ctr. (N.D. Iowa), Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg. (N.D. Iowa), OTR Wheel & Engineering v. West Worldwide (E.D. Wash.), Precision Automation v. Tech. Services (D. Or.).
  • Thomas M. Patton (Reg. No. 76,193).
  • Cara S. Donels — Des Moines.
  • Law.com reported Johnson, Patton, and Donels entering appearances for MidAmerican in the Iowa case; Johnson and Patton are also MidAmerican's PTAB lead/back-up counsel.
• Posture note: Per the previously generated section, MidAmerican and ME2C stipulated to dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in October 2025. If that is accurate, MidAmerican's counsel would typically have moved to withdraw — I could not verify withdrawal entries.

PacifiCorp

• McDermott Will & Emery LLP — Syed K. Fareed (Reg. No. 67,088; Austin, TX), David J. Tobin (Dallas), David M. Genender (Dallas), Brian Oaks, Christian Tatum.
  • Fareed's pro hac vice admission in the S.D. Iowa PacifiCorp action (4:25-cv-00037) is confirmed on the PacerMonitor docket (motion granted, Order at Dkt. 158; pro hac vice notice at Dkt. 160, filed by Fareed for PacifiCorp).
  • Experience: Fareed is a patent litigator with district court, Federal Circuit, ITC, and PTAB experience (previously Baker Botts; J.D. Minnesota 2008).
• ⚠️ Source discrepancy to flag: PTAB filings render the firm name inconsistently — some transcripts show "McDermott Will & Emery LLP" and others "McDermott Will & Schulte LLP" (e.g., the Jan. 12, 2026 Panel Change Order in IPR2025-00423). This appears to be a docket-transcription artifact rather than evidence of a firm-name change; the correct entity is McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Verify against the signed PDFs if you rely on it.

Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL)

• Not confirmed. IPL is an Alliant-family defendant and remained in the Iowa case after the Jan. 10, 2025 ruling, and it appeared as a petitioner in IPR2025-00278 and IPR2025-00281. I was unable to pin down a named district-court attorney/firm for IPL from the accessible sources. Per the prior section, IPL (with WPL) settled and was terminated from the IPR proceedings. Treat IPL's litigation counsel as unverified — this should be confirmed directly from the PACER docket or a signed IPL filing.

Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL)

• Perkins Coie LLP — Andrew Kalamarides; Michelle Kemp (Kemp appears as Perkins Coie PTAB counsel for the WEC/WPL side in IPR2025-00422); Brianna Kadjo also appears on the WPL docket.
• Dentons Davis Brown PC (Des Moines, IA) — Tara Z. Hall — appears as Iowa local counsel on the WPL docket (4:25-cv-00038).
• Quarles & Brady LLP — Michael Piery and Lauren Bolcar appear for the WEC Energy Group / WPL side in the related IPRs (IPR2025-00422 caption).
• Source: PacerMonitor docket summary for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Wisconsin Power and Light Company (S.D. Iowa 4:25-cv-00038), plus the PTAB caption in IPR2025-00422.

WEC Energy Group, Inc. (non-defendant parent; IPR petitioner)

• Quarles & Brady LLP (Piery, Bolcar) and Perkins Coie LLP (Kemp) appear on the petitioner side of the IPRs. WEC is not a named defendant in the Iowa case, but its counsel overlap with WPL is relevant to who is coordinating the defense.

---

Flags and contradictions with the previously generated sections

1. Plaintiff-side counsel appears to be wrong in the prior section. The "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Robert F. McCauley (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney), Brendan J. O'Malley, and Steven J. Henry (Stanley, Rehling & Henry). Every primary-filing source I found shows ME2C's actual counsel as Bradley W. Caldwell, Justin T. Nemunaitis, Richard A. Cochrane, and Hamad Hamad of Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. (Dallas), with Iowa local counsel Jeffrey D. Harty of Nyemaster Goode, P.C. (Des Moines) — signature blocks on the JPML motion (Nov. 14, 2024) and the Notice of Withdrawal of ME2C's Preliminary Injunction (Aug. 6, 2025) both confirm this. I found no support for Buchanan Ingersoll, O'Malley, or Henry in this MDL. That section should be corrected or re-verified rather than relied on.
2. Defendant group changed substantially after the Jan. 10, 2025 order. Any counsel list must be tied to the specific defendant and time period; BHE/Alliant/AECS/PacifiCorp counsel in the Iowa case may no longer be active there.
3. Settlement-driven attrition. Per the prior section, MidAmerican dismissed with prejudice in Oct. 2025 and IPL/WPL were terminated from IPR2025-00423. Defense teams for those parties may have withdrawn, which I could not verify here.
4. Timeline inconsistency in the prior section ("As of May 22, 2026, the case remains active" alongside a June 2026 announcement that all IPRs were resolved) — worth reconciling, though it doesn't affect the counsel identifications.

Bottom line: The clearly documented defense teams are Gibson Dunn (BHE; Hershkowitz/Mark/McCracken, with Fredrikson & Byron now handling the IPRs), Fredrikson & Byron (MidAmerican; R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton, Cara S. Donels), McDermott Will & Emery (PacifiCorp; Syed K. Fareed, David J. Tobin, David M. Genender), and Perkins Coie / Dentons Davis Brown / Quarles & Brady (WPL and WEC Energy Group; Kalamarides, Kemp, Kadjo, Hall, Piery, Bolcar). IPL's counsel is the one gap I could not close from open sources.