Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. v. PacifiCorp
Infringement action filed 31 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and closed 2 Jun 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Case no.
- 4:25-cv-00037
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Iowa
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Iowa
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 31 Jan 2025 – 2 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 487 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Columbia · Dave Johnston · Edgewater · George Neal · Jim Bridger · Louisa · Ottumwa · Prairie Creek · Walter Scott · Wyodak
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury
A promoted activated carbon sorbent is described that is highly effective for the removal of mercury from flue gas streams. The sorbent comprises a new modified carbon form containing reactive forms of halogen and halides. Optional components may be added to increase reactivity and mercury capacity. These may be added directly with the sorbent, or to the flue gas to enhance sorbent performance and/or mercury capture. Mercury removal efficiencies obtained exceed conventional methods. The sorbent can be regenerated and reused. Sorbent treatment and preparation methods are also described. New methods for in-flight preparation, introduction, and control of the active sorbent into the mercury contaminated gas stream are described.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 17 Mar 2020
- Earliest priority
- 30 Aug 2004
- Est. expiry
- 22 Aug 2025
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2025-00425 · Patentability · filed by PacificorpIPR2025-01323 · Patentability · filed by Union Electric Co.IPR2025-00424 · Patentability · filed by Pacificorp
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OLSON, EDWIN S. · HOLMES, MICHAEL J. · PAVLISH, JOHN HENRY
- Classification
- B01D53/64B01D53/10B01J20/20B01J20/04B01J20/10B01J20/12B01J20/22B01J20/02B01J20/34B01J20/28
- Prosecution counsel
- SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
- Examiner
- ORLANDO, AMBER R
Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury
A promoted activated carbon sorbent is described that is highly effective for the removal of mercury from flue gas streams. The sorbent comprises a new modified carbon form containing reactive forms of halogen and halides. Optional components may be added to increase reactivity and mercury capacity. These may be added directly with the sorbent, or to the flue gas to enhance sorbent performance and/or mercury capture. Mercury removal efficiencies obtained exceed conventional methods. The sorbent can be regenerated and reused. Sorbent treatment and preparation methods are also described. New methods for in-flight preparation, introduction, and control of the active sorbent into the mercury contaminated gas stream are described.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 24 Mar 2020
- Earliest priority
- 30 Aug 2004
- Est. expiry
- 22 Aug 2025
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2025-00281 · Patentability · filed by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANYIPR2025-00280 · Patentability · filed by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANYIPR2025-01117 · Patentability · filed by Union Electric Co.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OLSON, EDWIN S. · HOLMES, MICHAEL J. · PAVLISH, JOHN H.
- Classification
- B01D53/64B01D53/10B01J20/20B01J20/22
- Prosecution counsel
- SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
- Examiner
- ORLANDO, AMBER R
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Austin Curry · Bradley Wayne Caldwell · Jeffrey D. Harty · Justin Thomas Nemunaitis · Richard A. Cochrane
- Firm
- Caldwell Cassady Curry, PC, Nyemaster Goode PC
PacifiCorp
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David Michael Genender · David Tobin · Gregory R. Brown · Syed K. Fareed
- Firm
- Duncan Green PC, McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Austin Curry | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Bradley Wayne Caldwell | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey D. Harty | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Justin Thomas Nemunaitis | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Richard A. Cochrane | Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| David Michael Genender | PacifiCorp | Defendant |
| David Tobin | PacifiCorp | Defendant |
| Gregory R. Brown | PacifiCorp | Defendant |
| Syed K. Fareed | PacifiCorp | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant PacifiCorp. The Court, having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, hereby GRANTS the Stipulation as follows: A. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), PacifiCorp is dismissed with prejudice; and B. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c), all counterclaims filed by PacifiCorp are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Case 4:25-cv-00037 · S.D. Iowa · closed 2 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:25-cv-00037?
4:25-cv-00037 is a patent infringement action brought by Midwest Energy Emissions, Corp. against PacifiCorp, filed on 31 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case closed on 2 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 4:25-cv-00037?
US10589225B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP., currently inactive; US10596517B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP., currently inactive; US10926218B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP.; US10343114B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP.; US10668430B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP.; US10933370B2 (“Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury”), assigned to BIRCHTECH CORP.. The record also lists Columbia, Dave Johnston, Edgewater, George Neal, Jim Bridger, Louisa, Ottumwa, Prairie Creek, Walter Scott and Wyodak.
How was case 4:25-cv-00037 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant PacifiCorp. The Court, having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, hereby GRANTS the Stipulation as follows: A. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), PacifiCorp is dismissed with prejudice; and B. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c), all counterclaims filed by PacifiCorp are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 4:25-cv-00037 take?
487 calendar days, from filing on 31 Jan 2025 to closure on 2 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:25-cv-00037?
Austin Curry, Bradley Wayne Caldwell, Jeffrey D. Harty, Justin Thomas Nemunaitis and Richard A. Cochrane are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions. David Michael Genender, David Tobin, Gregory R. Brown and Syed K. Fareed appear for defendant PacifiCorp.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:25-cv-00037 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.