DCT

1:25-cv-00015

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00243, S.D. Iowa, 10/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' residence in the district, commission of infringing acts at power plants constituting regular and established places of business within the district, and theories of consent, agency, and alter ego among the various corporate entities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ operation of coal-fired power plants infringes six patents related to methods for removing mercury from combustion flue gas.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for coal-fired power plants to control mercury emissions to comply with federal and state environmental regulations, such as the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case (the "Delaware Case"), a jury found on March 1, 2024, that certain refined coal producers willfully induced infringement of two of the patents-in-suit (’114 and ’517 patents). Plaintiff also alleges multiple instances of pre-suit communications with the current Defendants regarding the patented technology, beginning as early as 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2018-09-01 ME2C first contacted Defendant PacifiCorp
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 Issued
2019-07-01 ME2C filed the "Delaware Case"
2020-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 Issued
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 Issued
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430 Issued
2021-01-01 A defendant settled in the "Delaware Case"
2021-02-05 ME2C contacted Defendant Alliant
2021-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218 Issued
2021-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 Issued
2021-08-11 Defendants MidAmerican and Alliant subpoenaed in "Delaware Case"
2021-10-28 ME2C contacted Defendants Alliant and MidAmerican
2022-02-01 ME2C contacted Defendants PacifiCorp and BHE
2022-06-28 Corporate representative of MidAmerican deposed in "Delaware Case"
2024-01-16 ME2C again contacted Defendants Alliant and MidAmerican
2024-03-01 Jury verdict of willful infringement in "Delaware Case"
2024-07-17 ME2C filed original complaint in the current case
2024-10-14 First Amended Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of removing mercury from flue gas generated by burning fossil fuels like coal (Compl. ¶¶61, 65). Existing methods using fine carbon particle (sorbent) injection are often only partially successful, require large amounts of expensive sorbent, and create solid waste disposal problems by contaminating the collected ash ('114 Patent, col. 2:10-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for enhancing mercury removal by using a halogen/halide-promoted sorbent ('114 Patent, col. 3:36-40). The process involves reacting a base sorbent (such as activated carbon) with a promoter (such as a bromine compound) to create a highly reactive surface ('114 Patent, col. 10:43-47). This "promoted sorbent" can be prepared "in-flight" by introducing the components into the flue gas stream, where it more effectively oxidizes and captures elemental mercury ('114 Patent, col. 3:48-52; FIG. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to provide a more economical and effective method for coal-fired power plants to comply with increasingly strict environmental regulations on mercury emissions (Compl. ¶¶66-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶241).
  • The essential elements of Claim 25 are:
    • A method of separating mercury from a mercury-containing gas.
    • Combusting coal in a combustion chamber to provide the mercury-containing gas, where the coal or combustion chamber comprises an added bromine-based compound (Br₂, HBr, or a bromide compound).
    • Injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the gas downstream of the combustion chamber.
    • Contacting the mercury with the sorbent to form a mercury/sorbent composition.
    • Separating the mercury/sorbent composition from the gas to form a cleaned gas.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶239).

U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '517 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the '114 Patent: the inefficient and costly removal of mercury from combustion gas streams using conventional sorbents ('517 Patent, col. 2:10-24; Compl. ¶¶61, 65).
  • The Patented Solution: The '517 patent claims a method for reducing mercury by combusting coal that comprises a halogen additive (like a bromide compound) and then collecting the resulting mercury with a sorbent (activated carbon) added downstream ('517 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-56). This process creates a "promoted sorbent" that is more reactive and efficient at capturing mercury ('517 Patent, col. 10:25-33).
  • Technical Importance: The method provides an improved technical pathway for power plants to meet regulatory requirements for mercury emissions control more cost-effectively than prior art methods (Compl. ¶¶66-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶261).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A method for reducing mercury in a mercury-containing gas.
    • Combusting coal in a combustion chamber, where the coal comprises an additive (Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof), to form the mercury-containing gas.
    • Collecting mercury in the gas with a sorbent added to the gas, the sorbent comprising activated carbon.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶259).

U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Technology Synopsis

The ’225 patent describes a method for treating mercury-containing gas by combusting a mixture of coal and a halogen additive (such as HBr or a bromide compound) and then adding a particulate sorbent like activated carbon to the resulting gas stream to capture the mercury ('225 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:11-2:48). The method aims to create a more reactive sorbent environment for efficient mercury removal.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶277).

Accused Features

The accused features are the processes used at Defendants' coal-fired power plants, which allegedly involve combusting coal with bromine-based additives and injecting activated carbon to capture mercury (Compl. ¶¶278-282).

U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Technology Synopsis

The ’430 patent claims a method of separating mercury from gas by combusting coal with a bromine-based additive, injecting an activated carbon sorbent downstream, contacting the mercury with the sorbent, and separating the resulting composition ('430 Patent, Abstract). The patent details adding the additive either to the coal before combustion or directly to the combustion chamber.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶293).

Accused Features

The accused features are Defendants' alleged mercury control processes at their power plants, which are claimed to practice the patented steps of adding a bromine compound and an activated carbon sorbent to the combustion gas stream (Compl. ¶¶294-302).

U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Technology Synopsis

The ’218 patent describes a method for separating mercury from gas using an iodine-based additive (HI, an iodide salt, or combination thereof) added to the coal or combustion chamber, followed by downstream injection of an activated carbon sorbent. The patent specifies a particular weight ratio of the additive to the sorbent.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶314).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that permitting documents for several of Defendants' plants reference the possible use of iodine additives and that, on information and belief, the plants have engaged in infringing use of such additives (Compl. ¶¶312, 315-323).

U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Technology Synopsis

The ’370 patent claims a method for separating mercury from gas by combusting a mixture of coal and an additive chosen from halides, halogens, or salts thereof. A particulate sorbent (activated carbon) is then added, with the patent specifying a weight ratio between the additive and the sorbent.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶334).

Accused Features

The accused features are the alleged processes at Defendants' power plants which involve adding halogen/halide additives and activated carbon sorbent within the specified ratios to capture mercury (Compl. ¶¶335-343).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the methods of operating a fleet of coal-fired power plants, including at least the Walter Scott, George Neal, Louisa, Ottumwa, Prairie Creek, Wyodak, Jim Bridger, Dave Johnston, Columbia, and Edgewater generating stations (Compl. ¶153). The complaint presents corporate structure diagrams to link parent companies to the subsidiaries that operate these plants (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). Figure 1 illustrates the corporate structure of Defendants BHE, PacifiCorp, and MidAmerican (Compl. ¶15). Figure 2 shows the corporate structure for Defendants Alliant, AECS, IPL, and WPL (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that to comply with federal and/or state mercury regulations, these plants perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶242). This allegedly involves combusting coal in a combustion chamber with bromine, bromide, and/or iodine that has been added to the coal or chamber; injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon downstream; and collecting the mercury bound to the sorbent in a particulate collection device like a baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) (Compl. ¶153). The operation of these plants is central to Defendants' business of generating and selling electricity (Compl. ¶¶200, 206).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of separating mercury from a mercury-containing gas. Defendants perform the method at the Accused Coal Plants to comply with mercury regulations. ¶242 col. 1:21-25
combusting coal in a combustion chamber to provide the mercury-containing gas, wherein the coal comprises added Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof...or the combustion chamber comprises added Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound... Defendants burn coal with an added Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof, and/or add these compounds to the combustion chamber. ¶244 col. 3:9-14
injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the mercury containing gas downstream of the combustion chamber. Defendants inject activated carbon sorbent downstream of the combustion chamber. ¶246 col. 10:11-16
contacting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with the sorbent, to form a mercury/sorbent composition. Mercury in the gas exiting the combustion chamber contacts the sorbent as both are contained in the same gas stream. ¶248 col. 3:41-44
separating the mercury/sorbent composition from the mercury-containing gas, to form a cleaned gas. Defendants use equipment such as baghouses or electrostatic precipitators to collect the mercury captured by the sorbent. ¶250 col. 2:4-9

U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for reducing mercury in a mercury-containing gas. Defendants perform this method at the Accused Coal Plants to comply with mercury regulations. ¶262 col. 1:11-14
combusting coal in a combustion chamber, the coal comprising an additive comprising Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof, to form the mercury-containing gas. Defendants combust coal with an additive comprising Br₂, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof. ¶264 col. 22:45-48
collecting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with a sorbent added to the mercury-containing gas, the sorbent comprising activated carbon. Defendants add sorbent comprising activated carbon to the gas exiting the combustion chamber and collect the mercury using equipment like baghouses or ESPs. ¶266 col. 1:63-66

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The patents’ specifications extensively discuss the creation of a "promoted sorbent," where a base sorbent is reacted with a promoter to become more reactive ('114 Patent, col. 3:36-40). The complaint alleges infringement by injecting a standard activated carbon sorbent downstream of where a separate bromine compound is added upstream (Compl. ¶¶153, 244-246). This raises the question of whether performing these steps sequentially in the flue gas stream constitutes the claimed "method," or if the claims, when read in light of the specification, require the use of a pre-promoted sorbent composition.
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of contention may be the factual question of whether and how the separately injected halogen and sorbent interact "in-flight" within the flue gas stream at the accused plants. The infringement theory relies on the premise that this interaction occurs and effectively practices the patented method (Compl. ¶248), a point that may require expert testimony and evidence regarding the chemical reactions under the specific operating conditions of each plant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon" ('114 Patent, Claim 25) and "collecting mercury...with a sorbent added to the mercury-containing gas, the sorbent comprising activated carbon" ('517 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "sorbent" in the context of the claimed methods will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants are accused of injecting a standard, un-promoted activated carbon sorbent, whereas the patent specifications heavily emphasize the advantages of a "promoted sorbent" that has been pre-reacted with a halogen/halide. The dispute may center on whether the claims read on a process that simply uses standard activated carbon in a halogen-rich environment, or if they are implicitly limited to a sorbent that has itself been altered as described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents describe "in-flight" preparation, where the base sorbent and promoter react within the flue gas stream to form the promoted sorbent ('114 Patent, col. 10:48-52). This language could support Plaintiff's argument that the separate injection of the components is a covered embodiment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents repeatedly define the invention in terms of a "promoted sorbent" as a distinct composition that is "highly effective for the removal of mercury" ('114 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:36-40). Language describing the promoter reacting with the sorbent "to produce a product-promoted sorbent" ('114 Patent, col. 10:17-19) could support a narrower construction requiring the formation of a specific composition, rather than just the co-presence of the components in the gas.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that parent companies BHE, Alliant, and AECS induce infringement by their respective operating subsidiaries (Compl. ¶¶252, 268, 284, 304, 345). The alleged acts of inducement include exercising control over the subsidiaries, providing technical and financial services, and participating in the supply contract process for the activated carbon and bromine-containing additives used in the infringing processes (Compl. ¶¶155-156, 165, 169).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least 2018 through direct commercial negotiations with ME2C (Compl. ¶¶214-220). The complaint also cites the jury verdict in the Delaware Case as public notice of the patents and the infringing nature of the technology (Compl. ¶¶85, 228). Continued use of the accused methods after the filing of the original complaint is also alleged as a basis for willfulness (Compl. ¶¶227-229).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the method claims, which are described in a specification focused on creating a novel "promoted sorbent," be construed to cover a process where a standard, un-promoted activated carbon sorbent is injected into a flue gas stream that was separately dosed with a halogen additive upstream?
  • A second central question will be one of corporate liability: does the evidence of shared management, intercompany service agreements, and parental control over operational and contracting decisions, as alleged in the complaint, suffice to hold parent holding companies like BHE and Alliant directly or indirectly liable for infringement occurring at plants operated by their distinct corporate subsidiaries?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: given the alleged history of licensing negotiations and the public jury verdict in the prior Delaware litigation concerning the same technology, what was the state of mind of the Defendants regarding their potential infringement, and does their conduct rise to the level of willfulness?