ME2C v. MidAmerican Energy: Six Coal Emissions Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (operating as ME2C, a Birchtech company) filed suit against Iowa utility MidAmerican Energy Company asserting six US patents covering mercury and pollutant capture at coal-fired power plants. After 464 days of litigation in the Iowa Southern District Court, both parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
A Six-Patent Coal Emissions Dispute Ends in Bilateral Stipulated Dismissal
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (Birchtech Corp., d/b/a ME2C) filed this infringement action on 17 July 2024 in the Iowa Southern District Court against MidAmerican Energy Company, one of the Midwest’s largest regulated electric utilities. The complaint asserted six US patents — US10589225B2, US10596517B2, US10926218B2, US10343114B2, US10668430B2, and US10933370B2 — all directed at emissions-control processes used at coal-fired power plants, specifically mercury and pollutant capture from combustion flue gas.
The case was designated part of a multidistrict patent infringement proceeding, suggesting ME2C was simultaneously pursuing parallel actions against other utilities. On 24 October 2025, after 464 days of litigation, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and (c). The court ordered the dismissal, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a cost structure that neither confirms nor rules out a private settlement agreement underpinning the stipulation.
A dismissal with prejudice after 464 days — well into the discovery and claim-construction phase for most district court patent cases — suggests the parties likely reached a negotiated resolution, though the public record is silent on financial terms or any licensing arrangement. The MDL designation further indicates ME2C has been active in enforcing this patent portfolio across the utility sector broadly, making the resolution of this particular defendant notable for how MidAmerican Energy ultimately exited the litigation.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 464 days
464-day lifespan — longer than the median district court patent case settlement window
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice bars any refiling on the same claims
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a) and (c) permanently extinguishes the dismissed claims. ME2C cannot re-assert these six patents against MidAmerican Energy on the same accused coal plant activities. The stipulated nature — agreed by both parties — distinguishes this from a court-imposed dismissal and typically signals that the dispute has been commercially resolved rather than abandoned.
Permanent bar on refilingME2C’s patents survive — but MidAmerican exits the litigation permanently
A dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate ME2C’s six patents. The patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. However, ME2C has permanently forfeited its infringement claims against MidAmerican Energy specifically. If a licensing arrangement was reached (not confirmed in the public record), ME2C may have secured ongoing royalty income while closing the litigation risk of an adverse validity ruling.
Patents remain enforceable elsewhereMidAmerican achieves litigation finality — on commercially negotiated terms
MidAmerican Energy exits the case free from any court-imposed damages, injunction, or adverse patent ruling. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal means it cannot be sued again by ME2C on these patents for the same conduct. Each party bearing its own costs suggests neither side extracted a litigation-cost concession, consistent with a balanced negotiated exit rather than a clear win for either party on the merits.
No adverse judgment on recordMDL context signals a broader campaign against coal-plant operators
The court’s characterisation of this as a multidistrict patent infringement case signals ME2C has pursued parallel actions against multiple utilities. The resolution here may influence how other MDL defendants approach their own negotiations. Utilities still in litigation with ME2C over these patents should monitor settlement terms carefully; a with-prejudice dismissal on equal cost terms can set a soft benchmark for how ME2C values its claims against similarly situated operators.
MDL benchmark for remaining defendantsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Company | Emissions-control technology licensor — holder of US10589225B2 and 5 related coal plant patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MidAmerican Energy Company | Company | MidAmerican Energy Company — major Midwest regulated electric utility operating coal-fired generationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Austin Curry | Attorney | Counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley Wayne Caldwell | Attorney | Counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey D. Harty | Attorney | Counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Thomas Nemunaitis | Attorney | Counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard A. Cochrane | Attorney | Counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY, PC | Law Firm | Representing Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | NYEMASTER GOODE PC | Law Firm | Representing Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cara S. Donels | Attorney | Counsel for MidAmerican Energy CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Scott Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for MidAmerican Energy CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Merrill Patton | Attorney | Counsel for MidAmerican Energy CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fredrikson & Byron PA (DSM) | Law Firm | Representing MidAmerican Energy CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Iowa Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely mirrors the parties’ stipulation language, confirming a fully consensual exit rather than any judicial determination of infringement or validity. The equal cost-bearing provision is particularly significant: under 35 U.S.C. § 285, exceptional cases allow fee-shifting — the absence of any fee award here suggests neither party pursued nor secured an exceptionality finding, consistent with an arms-length commercial resolution. The MDL framing in the verdict text also confirms this case is one node in a larger enforcement campaign.
US10589225B2 — Sorbent-Based Mercury Capture from Coal Combustion Flue Gas
The six asserted patents — US10589225B2, US10596517B2, US10926218B2, US10343114B2, US10668430B2, and US10933370B2 — represent a closely related family covering emissions-control processes for coal-fired power plants, with particular focus on sorbent injection and activated-carbon-based mercury capture from combustion flue gas. Application dates span from approximately 2015 to 2019, suggesting a deliberate portfolio-building strategy timed around tightening EPA mercury and air toxics (MATS) regulations affecting US coal utilities.
For the coal power sector, this portfolio is strategically significant: mercury capture using sorbent injection is one of the most widely deployed compliance technologies at US coal plants. If ME2C’s claims cover standard activated carbon injection methods, potentially every coal-fired generator in the US faces exposure. The MDL structure of ME2C’s enforcement campaign — with MidAmerican Energy as just one named defendant — suggests the portfolio has been assessed as broadly enforceable across the utility industry, creating meaningful IP risk for any operator that has not secured a licence or design-around.
Should your coal plant operations be cleared against US10589225B2 and related ME2C patents?
Any company operating coal-fired generation in the US that uses sorbent injection — particularly activated carbon systems — for mercury or pollutant control should treat ME2C’s six-patent portfolio as a live FTO risk. The MDL enforcement pattern demonstrates that ME2C actively identifies and pursues utilities at scale. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means all six patents remain presumptively valid, and the MidAmerican dismissal provides no precedent that weakens ME2C’s claims against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and compliance teams to map coal-plant emissions-control processes against ME2C’s full patent family, identify claim scope for each of the six asserted patents, surface any inter partes review petitions or prior art that may limit enforceability, and monitor the MDL docket for outcomes that could shift the risk landscape. An automated Eureka alert on Birchtech/ME2C’s patent portfolio will flag new assertions before litigation is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10589225B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Coal Plant Emissions Patent Infringement Cases in US District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving coal-plant emissions-control technology and sorbent systems litigated in US district and MDL courts.
What this case signals for the coal-plant emissions IP landscape
ME2C’s six-patent MDL campaign against utilities reveals a systematic enforcement strategy with commercial resolution patterns worth tracking.
With-prejudice dismissals in MDL patent cases often mask private licensing deals
When both parties stipulate to a with-prejudice dismissal and split their own costs, the public record rarely tells the full story. In MDL patent campaigns, this structure typically reflects a negotiated licence or covenant not to sue. Utilities and their counsel should assume financial terms were exchanged even absent public disclosure.
Six-patent portfolio depth raises the cost of invalidity challenges for any single defendant
ME2C’s assertion of six related emissions-control patents simultaneously significantly increases the cost and risk for any individual utility mounting an IPR or invalidity defence. A defendant would need to invalidate all six patents to fully neutralise the threat, which likely increases settlement pressure in MDL proceedings.
Midwest v MidAmerican — key questions answered
ME2C asserted US10589225B2, US10596517B2, US10926218B2, US10343114B2, US10668430B2, and US10933370B2 — a family of patents covering sorbent-injection and emissions-control processes for coal-fired power plants, particularly mercury capture from combustion flue gas.
The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars ME2C from re-asserting the same six patents against MidAmerican Energy for the same accused conduct. MidAmerican exits the litigation without any adverse judgment on infringement or validity. The equal cost split means neither party received a litigation-cost concession from the other.
The court’s order characterises the action as part of a multidistrict patent infringement case, suggesting ME2C (Birchtech Corp.) filed parallel infringement actions against multiple utilities asserting the same patent portfolio. MDL consolidation is used when common questions of fact arise across related cases in different districts.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. However, a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — where both parties agree to end the case and each bear their own costs — is commonly associated with a private commercial resolution. No licensing terms or financial payments are disclosed in the court order.
Because all six ME2C patents remain valid and enforceable — no invalidity ruling was issued in this case — any US coal plant operator using sorbent-injection mercury-capture systems faces potential exposure. ME2C’s MDL enforcement pattern suggests active monitoring of utility compliance activities. A freedom-to-operate analysis against this six-patent family is advisable for any potentially affected operator.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.