DCT

2:25-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 because Defendants are incorporated or reside in Iowa, have committed acts of infringement at power plants within the district, maintain regular and established places of business in the district, and/or have consented to venue. The complaint further alleges venue over parent corporations based on theories of agency and alter ego.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' operation of coal-fired power plants infringes six patents related to methods for removing mercury from flue gas.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the removal of mercury, a hazardous air pollutant, from the emissions of coal-fired power plants, a process subject to significant federal and state environmental regulations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior lawsuit in the District of Delaware, which resulted in a March 1, 2024 jury verdict finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,343,114 and 10,596,517 were willfully infringed by a group of refined coal entities. The complaint also alleges multiple instances of pre-suit communications with Defendants regarding the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2018-09-01 ME2C first contacted Defendant PacifiCorp for negotiations
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 (’114 Patent) Issued
2020-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 (’225 Patent) Issued
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 (’517 Patent) Issued
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430 (’430 Patent) Issued
2021-02-05 ME2C contacted Defendant Alliant for negotiations
2021-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218 (’218 Patent) Issued
2021-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 (’370 Patent) Issued
2021-10-28 ME2C contacted Defendants Alliant and MidAmerican for negotiations
2022-02-01 ME2C again contacted Defendants PacifiCorp and BHE for negotiations
2024-01-16 ME2C again contacted Defendants Alliant and MidAmerican for negotiations
2024-03-01 Jury verdict in Delaware Case finding '114 and '517 Patents willfully infringed
2024-07-17 Plaintiff filed original complaint in the instant case
2024-10-14 Plaintiff filed First Amended Complaint

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued July 9, 2019.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge that existing methods for removing mercury from coal-fired power plant flue gas, such as injecting activated carbon, are relatively inefficient and expensive, requiring large amounts of sorbent that in turn contaminate the collected coal ash (fly ash) and create waste disposal problems (’114 Patent, col. 2:11-19).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes enhancing the mercury-capture capability of a sorbent material by "promoting" it with a halogen or halide, such as bromine (’114 Patent, col. 4:1-7). By adding a promoter to a base sorbent (like activated carbon) or directly into the gas stream, the system creates highly reactive sites that facilitate the chemical oxidation and physical capture of elemental mercury, making the overall process more efficient than using standard sorbents alone (’114 Patent, col. 10:9-24, Fig. 1).
    • Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a more economical and effective solution for power plants to comply with stringent environmental regulations on mercury emissions, a significant operational and financial challenge for the industry (Compl. ¶¶61, 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 gas, where a bromide-containing additive (e.g., Br2, HBr) has been added either to the coal upstream of the chamber or into the chamber itself.
      • Injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the gas downstream of the combustion chamber.
      • Contacting the mercury in the gas with the sorbent to form a mercury/sorbent composition.
      • Separating that composition from the gas to form a cleaned gas.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-30, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶239).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued March 24, 2020.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a member of the same patent family, the ’517 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’114 Patent: the inefficiency and high cost of conventional sorbent-based mercury removal systems in coal-fired power plants (’517 Patent, col. 2:11-23).
    • The Patented Solution: The solution is also analogous to that of the ’114 Patent. It involves using a halogen or halide as a promoter to increase the reactivity of a sorbent for mercury capture (’517 Patent, col. 4:35-43). The patent discloses a method where a bromine-containing additive is introduced with the coal during combustion, followed by the addition of an activated carbon sorbent to the resulting flue gas to collect the mercury (’517 Patent, col. 38:8-20, Claim 1).
    • Technical Importance: The technology provided an alternative, and allegedly more efficient, method for power plants to meet regulatory requirements for mercury emissions, as described in Section II for the ’114 Patent.
  • 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 (e.g., Br2, HBr, a bromide compound).
      • Collecting mercury from the resulting gas with a sorbent comprising activated carbon that is added to the gas.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-30, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶259).

U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued March 17, 2020 (Compl. ¶272).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for treating mercury-containing gas by combusting a mixture of coal and pyrolysis char with a bromine-based additive, and then adding a particulate sorbent of activated carbon into the resulting gas stream (’225 Patent, col. 23:64-67, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶277).
  • Accused Features: The accused method involves combusting coal with an additive comprising HBr or a bromide compound, followed by adding a sorbent containing activated carbon (Compl. ¶¶280, 282).

U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued June 2, 2020 (Compl. ¶288).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of separating mercury from gas by combusting coal with a bromine-based additive and then injecting an activated carbon sorbent downstream to contact and separate the mercury.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶293).
  • Accused Features: The accused method involves combusting coal with an additive comprising Br2, HBr, or a bromide compound, and subsequently injecting a sorbent containing activated carbon (Compl. ¶¶296, 298).

U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued February 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶308).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is distinct in that it claims a method for mercury separation using an iodine-based additive (HI, an iodide salt) rather than bromine. The method involves combusting coal with the iodine additive and then injecting a specific weight ratio of activated carbon sorbent.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶314).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges, based on permitting documents, that certain accused power plants have engaged in infringing use of iodine additives in combination with activated carbon sorbents (Compl. ¶312).

U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370, "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury," issued March 2, 2021 (Compl. ¶329).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a broader method for separating mercury using an additive chosen from "halides, halogens, salts thereof, and combinations thereof." The method requires adding a particulate sorbent of activated carbon within a specified weight ratio to the additive.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶334).
  • Accused Features: The accused process involves combusting coal with an additive comprising halides or halogens and adding a particulate sorbent of activated carbon (Compl. ¶¶337, 339).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the processes and methods used to operate specific coal-fired power plants owned or controlled by the Defendants, referred to as the "Accused Coal Plants" (Compl. ¶153). These plants include, among others, the Walter Scott, Louisa, George Neal, and Ottumwa generating stations (Compl. ¶¶86, 93, 101, 109).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Coal Plants perform a multi-step process for mercury control to comply with federal and/or state regulations (Compl. ¶242). This process is alleged to involve: (1) combusting coal; (2) adding a halogen-based additive (containing bromine, iodine, or other halides) to the coal or the combustion chamber; (3) injecting an activated carbon sorbent into the flue gas downstream of the combustion chamber; and (4) using particulate collection devices like baghouses or electrostatic precipitators to capture the sorbent material, which is now bound to mercury (Compl. ¶¶90-92, 98-100, 153-154). The complaint includes corporate structure diagrams to illustrate the ownership and control relationships between the various defendant entities that operate these plants (Compl. ¶¶15, 18, Fig. 1-2). Figure 1 illustrates the corporate structure of Defendants BHE, PacifiCorp, and MidAmerican, showing BHE as the ultimate parent of the operating companies (Compl. ¶15, Fig. 1). These power plants are alleged to be significant assets in Defendants' energy portfolios (Compl. ¶¶38, 45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’114 Patent 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 accused method at the Accused Coal Plants to comply with mercury regulations. ¶242 col. 35:22-24
combusting coal in a combustion chamber to provide the mercury-containing gas, wherein the coal comprises added Br2, HBr, a bromide compound...added to the coal upstream of the combustion chamber, or the combustion chamber comprises added Br2, HBr, a bromide compound... Defendants burn coal with an added bromine-based additive in the combustion chambers of the Accused Coal Plants. ¶244 col. 2:31-33
injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the mercury containing gas downstream of the combustion chamber. Defendants inject an activated carbon sorbent into the flue gas after it exits the combustion chamber. ¶246 col. 14:10-16
contacting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with the sorbent, to form a mercury/sorbent composition. Mercury in the flue gas exiting the combustion chamber contacts the injected sorbent material as both are contained in the same gas stream. ¶248 col. 20:64-67
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 sorbent (with captured mercury) from the gas stream. ¶250 col. 2:4-10

’517 Patent 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. 36:50-52
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 a bromine-based additive to generate mercury-containing flue gas. ¶264 col. 2:28-30
collecting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with a sorbent added to the mercury-containing gas, the sorbent comprising activated carbon. Defendants add an activated carbon sorbent to the gas exiting the combustion chamber, which is then collected by equipment like baghouses or electrostatic precipitators. ¶266 col. 2:2-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: A primary point of contention may be the factual evidence of infringement for each accused plant. For the ’218 Patent, which claims an iodine-based method, the complaint's allegations rely on "permitting documents" and possible "testing" use, while acknowledging the plants "rely primarily on bromine" (Compl. ¶312). The scope and frequency of any such iodine use will likely be a key factual dispute.
    • Scope Questions: Defendants may argue that the context of the patent specifications, which describe the chemical theory behind creating a "promoted sorbent" by reacting a halogen with the sorbent material itself (’114 Patent, col. 4:1-7), limits the scope of the claims. This could raise the question of whether the asserted claims, which recite separate additions of additive and sorbent, cover a process that achieves the patented result without creating the specific "promoted sorbent" composition described in the specification's preferred embodiments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "collecting mercury... with a sorbent" ('517 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the capture step of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because the accused process involves two distinct actions: adding a sorbent to the gas stream and then using separate equipment (a baghouse or ESP) to physically remove the sorbent from that stream. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether this two-part sequence meets a single claim limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The shared specification for the patents-in-suit explicitly describes removing sorbent particles from a gas stream "in a particulate control device such as a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and collected along with ash particulate" (’114 Patent, col. 2:4-10). This language suggests the inventors contemplated "collecting" as a process that includes the use of such downstream equipment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the plain meaning of "collecting... with a sorbent" implies the sorbent itself is the collection medium, not merely an agent that is subsequently collected. Language discussing passing flue gas "through a sorbent bed" elsewhere in the background could be cited to support a narrower interpretation limited to fixed-bed or filter-like systems (’114 Patent, col. 2:2-3).

  • The Term: "the coal comprises added Br2, HBr, a bromide compound..." ('114 Patent, Claim 25)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires that a specific type of chemical additive be "added" to the coal. The dispute will likely center on whether the specific commercial additives used by Defendants meet the definition of "a bromide compound" and whether their introduction into the process constitutes being "added" in the manner claimed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification broadly discusses using "promoter[s] selected from the group consisting of halides, halogens, and combinations thereof" (’114 Patent, col. 4:10-14). This broad disclosure may support a construction of "bromide compound" that encompasses a wide variety of bromine-containing substances used to enhance mercury capture.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed chemical theory for how certain bromine species interact with sorbents to form "a new chemically modified structure" (’114 Patent, col. 17:15-20). A defendant could argue this context limits the term "bromide compound" to only those specific compounds that function according to this disclosed mechanism, potentially excluding other additives that may work differently.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that parent companies BHE, Alliant, and AECS induced their respective subsidiaries to infringe (Compl. ¶252). The allegations are based on the parent companies' exercise of control, provision of technical and financial services, shared directors, and alleged participation in supply contract processes for the activated carbon and bromine additives used at the infringing power plants (Compl. ¶¶155-156, 165, 169, 268).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on multiple direct communications and negotiation attempts with Defendants between 2018 and 2024, where Plaintiff allegedly identified the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶214-220). It further alleges that the March 2024 jury verdict in the Delaware Case put Defendants on notice of the infringement. Willfulness is also alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after the original complaint in this action was filed on July 17, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶227-229, 232).

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

  • A core issue will be one of corporate liability: can the Plaintiff present sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or otherwise prove that parent companies like Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Alliant exercised the specific direction and control over their operating subsidiaries necessary to establish liability for induced infringement? The dispute will likely focus on the details of intercompany agreements, shared services, and decision-making authority for power plant operations.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of infringement: for a portfolio of numerous power plants and six asserted patents with slightly different chemical requirements (bromine vs. iodine vs. general halides), a central challenge will be marshalling specific factual evidence—through discovery of operational logs, chemical purchase orders, and plant schematics—to prove that the precise method practiced at each plant meets every limitation of an asserted claim.
  • A central legal question may turn on willfulness: given the complaint's allegations of a prior jury verdict on two of the patents-in-suit and multiple pre-suit notices, a significant focus will be on what Defendants knew about the patents and when they knew it. The case will test what level of notice is sufficient to expose a party to the risk of enhanced damages for willful infringement.