Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. PacifiCorp

This patent infringement litigation, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. PacifiCorp, arises from claims brought by Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (ME2C), an environmental services and technology company focused on mercury emission control for coal-fired power plants. ME2C develops and deploys proprietary Sorbent Enhancement Additive (SEA) technologies designed to capture mercury from flue gas. The defendant, PacifiCorp, is a regulated electric utility operating in six Western U.S. states and is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy. PacifiCorp is accused of infringing ME2C's patent by utilizing methods and systems for capturing mercury pollution at its coal-fired power plants, specifically involving the use of halogen additives and activated carbon in their emission control processes. The sole patent at issue in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, which broadly covers system configurations for emission control related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury.

The case, originally filed in the District of Wyoming, was transferred to and consolidated with MDL No. 3132, titled "In Re: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Case No. 4:25-cv-00037). District Judge Stephen H. Locher and Magistrate Judge William P. Kelly are assigned to the lead MDL case. This consolidation is significant as it centralizes numerous similar patent infringement claims brought by ME2C against various utility companies, aiming to streamline pretrial proceedings, ensure consistent claim construction, and conserve judicial resources across a broad patent enforcement campaign.

This litigation is notable due to ME2C's extensive and aggressive patent enforcement strategy within the power industry. ME2C has a history of pursuing infringement claims against numerous defendants, having previously litigated against over 70 defendants in the District of Delaware. That prior effort resulted in a substantial $57 million patent infringement verdict in ME2C's favor against certain defendants for their use of mercury-capture technology. The ongoing MDL highlights ME2C's continued commitment to enforcing its intellectual property rights related to mercury emissions control, a critical area for coal-fired power plants in meeting stringent environmental regulations, such as the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

The patent infringement litigation Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. PacifiCorp, Case No. 4:25-cv-00037, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, involves U.S. Patent 10,668,430 and is currently active as part of a larger Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-12-12: The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a Transfer Order establishing MDL No. 3132, titled "In Re: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation," and centralized the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The JPML found common questions of fact across multiple cases alleging infringement of patents related to mercury pollution capture at coal-fired power plants. The patents at issue in the MDL include U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, among others.
• 2024-12-17: MDL No. 3132 was formally filed in the Southern District of Iowa as Case No. 4:24-md-03132-SHL-WPK.
• 2025-01-31: The specific case, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. PacifiCorp, was filed in the Southern District of Iowa, having been transferred from the District of Wyoming (where it was Case No. 2:25-cv-00015). On the same day, it was consolidated with and became part of MDL No. 3132.
• Before 2025-01-31: Prior to its formal transfer and consolidation, PacifiCorp had already filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the originating Iowa action, to which Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. had responded.
• 2025-02-05: Defendant PacifiCorp filed an unresisted motion for leave to file its Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and supporting materials under seal within the MDL.
• 2025-02-06: The court granted PacifiCorp's motion, allowing the Answer and Counterclaims to be filed under seal. This indicates that PacifiCorp has filed its responsive pleadings, including potential counterclaims for invalidity or non-infringement, though the specific contents are sealed.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-05-22: The MDL court denied without prejudice motions to stay filed by most defendants, who indicated they had filed or planned to file applications with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review (IPR) of the patents-in-suit. The court determined that a stay was not appropriate before the PTAB decided whether to institute review proceedings.
• 2025-05-22: On the same date, the MDL court denied defendants' joint motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions and a joint motion to extend the deadline for defendants' invalidity contentions. The court found Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.'s initial infringement contentions sufficient at that stage.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Defendants in the MDL have initiated or intend to initiate IPR proceedings for the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent 10,668,430. As of May 22, 2025, the district court denied requests to stay the litigation pending the PTAB's decision on institution, indicating the court proceedings are moving forward in parallel with any PTAB filings.
• A search of the USPTO's PTAB database (P-TACTS) would be required to confirm specific IPR filings and their current status for Patent 10,668,430.

Current Posture:
The case is active and proceeding as part of MDL No. 3132 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. As of the current date (2026-05-22), there have been no reported claim construction rulings (Markman), discovery milestones beyond the motion to compel, trial events, verdicts, or final judgments specific to this case, other than its transfer and consolidation. The denial of motions to stay means the case is moving through the pre-trial phase while potential IPRs are pending at the PTAB.

Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. is represented by the following counsel:

• Justin Nemunaitis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nemunaitis, P.C., Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Nemunaitis has appeared for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. in this and related cases, including filing declarations and notices.

• Jeffrey Harty

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa
  • Note: Mr. Harty has appeared on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and is involved in filings such as responses to motions.

Defendant PacifiCorp is represented by the following counsel of record in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. PacifiCorp, which has been consolidated into MDL No. 3132:

• Syed K. Fareed (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Syed K. Fareed is a partner who focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes, often serving as lead counsel in high-tech patent litigation. He represents clients in district courts across the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (USITC), and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). His experience spans diverse sectors including computer software, e-commerce, telecommunications, data processing, semiconductors, magnetic tape storage, and medical and dental devices. He has served as lead counsel for a power generation company in multi-patent litigation, securing a stay pending inter partes review (IPR) and a favorable settlement.

While an earlier docket entry from January 2025 indicated the appearance of a "Marie Durrant" for PacifiCorp, more recent searches did not definitively identify a patent litigation attorney with this name representing PacifiCorp or having relevant patent litigation experience. Instead, searches returned a "Mark Durrant" specializing in real estate and a "Kath Durrant" as a director for a different company. Given the consolidation of this case into MDL No. 3132 and the date of the previous docket entry, it's possible her role has concluded or she is local counsel whose primary practice is not patent litigation. Therefore, only Syed K. Fareed is confidently identified as current counsel with specific patent litigation experience for PacifiCorp in this matter based on the available information. Further detailed PACER review of the MDL docket, beyond general web search capabilities, would be necessary to confirm all active local counsel.