Untitled case

This case, IPR2025-01185, involves an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780. The Patent Owner is Champion Power Equipment, Inc., an operating company that manufactures power equipment. The Petitioners challenging the patent are MWE Equipment Sales, LLC, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., and Generac Power Systems, Inc., all of whom appear to be operating companies, likely competitors or distributors in the power equipment sector. The challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780, generally relates to a portable generator system, designed to provide a ready power source and potentially featuring a removable power pack or integrated battery charging.

The procedural posture of IPR2025-01185 is at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where the petition for inter partes review was ultimately denied institution on the merits. The PTAB, on January 16, 2026, determined that the Petitioners "failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition". This "Not Instituted - Merits" decision indicates that the PTAB reviewed the substance of the invalidity arguments presented and found them unconvincing, rather than denying institution on discretionary grounds. This IPR is one of several related IPRs and district court litigations involving Champion Power Equipment, Inc. and various parties, including cases against Firman Power Equipment Inc., Generac Power Systems Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corp., suggesting a broader patent enforcement strategy by Champion Power Equipment.

This case is notable given the recent landscape of PTAB practice, particularly concerning institution decisions. In late 2025, the USPTO Director, John Squires, assumed personal responsibility for all IPR and post-grant review (PGR) institution determinations, issuing summary notices for routine decisions and reserving detailed opinions for novel or important factual or legal issues. The denial of institution on the merits in IPR2025-01185 means that Champion Power Equipment's U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780 has successfully withstood a challenge at the PTAB, thereby preserving its presumed validity against the asserted prior art grounds. This outcome is significant for the patent owner, as it strengthens their position in any ongoing or future patent infringement litigation related to portable generator systems, which are at the core of this industry dispute.

I'll research the parallel district court litigation and related PTAB proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780.

Rich results. Let me dig into the specific dockets and rulings.

Let me pin down key ruling dates and the remaining district court cases.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — The District Court Litigation Over U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780

Scope note. IPR2025-01185 is the PTAB proceeding; the "litigation" properly refers to the four co-pending district court actions in which Champion Power Equipment, Inc. has asserted the '780 patent (and 12 sibling patents from its 2013 and 2015 families) against Firman, Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE. I cover those below in chronological order, along with the parallel PTAB track. Where my sourcing is incomplete I say so rather than filling gaps.

---

Metadata discrepancies to flag up front

1. Petitioner name. The case metadata lists "MWE Equipment Sales, LLC." Every PTAB filing I retrieved names the petitioner as "MWE Investments, LLC" (e.g., the POPR caption in IPR2025-01185 and the joint captions in IPR2025-00805/00951/01463). Treat "MWE Investments, LLC" as correct; "MWE Equipment Sales" appears to be an error.
2. Party alignment. The prompt frames Petitioners as "plaintiff(s)." In the district court litigation, Champion is the plaintiff in Firman, Generac, E.D. Wis.–Harbor Freight and MWE; Harbor Freight is the plaintiff in the C.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action. This matters for tracking "filing & initial pleadings."

---

1. Pre-suit notice campaigns (2019–2024)

These letters are the damages-notice and willfulness predicates across all four cases (HFT DJ Compl. ¶¶3–5; Firman FAC ¶26).

---

2. The Firman action — first-filed (D. Ariz. No. 2:23-cv-02371-PHX-DWL)

---

3. The Generac action (E.D. Wis. No. 2:24-cv-01281-LA, Judge Lynn Adelman)

No Markman order, no trial, no verdict, no settlement, and no judgment have occurred in the Generac case. It remains active.

---

4. The Harbor Freight actions (E.D. Wis. 2:24-cv-01302-PP and C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-08722-SVW-AS)

Note: The Oct. 15, 2025 minutes are expressly tentative and invite further argument. I could not confirm that a final claim-construction order has issued. This is the single most important substantive ruling to date affecting the '780 patent — because the § 112(f) treatment of "fuel lockout apparatus" and the "single" fuel valve construction are both narrowing and cut against Champion's infringement theories.

---

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '780 patent and the family

Champion's POPR in IPR2025-01185 states that 13 Champion patents are asserted across the 4 co-pending cases (Firman, Generac, HFT, MWE); Petitioners challenged 12 of the 13 in IPR and promised a petition on the remaining '145 patent. Key outcomes:

Effect on the litigation: The Jan. 2026 denials preserve the '780 patent's presumed validity and remove the estoppel/§ 315(e) exposure that an instituted IPR would have created for the Petitioners. Conversely, Champion has now lost its main discretionary-denial leverage for any future stay motion, and the co-pending cases have not been stayed — Champion repeatedly represented in its POPRs that "Patent Owner has not agreed to a stay in any of these cases," and the Firman court (where Firman is not a petitioner and its § 315(b) window closed long ago) is the least likely to stay.

Director-level overlay: Consistent with the late-2025 shift under USPTO Director John Squires toward personal control of institution decisions, the January 2026 rulings came in a cluster of routine/denial notices rather than detailed opinions. The 2026-01-16 merits denial in IPR2025-01185 is described in the case metadata as a substantive denial; I was not able to retrieve the underlying opinion text to confirm whether it issues from the Board panel or the Director.

---

6. Where things stand (present posture, as of 2026-09-26)

• Firman (D. Ariz.): furthest along. Claim construction complete; amended invalidity contentions permitted; trial expected 2026-11-10. Live issues include inequitable conduct (RD9000E / Cabela's), 33 "system art" references, and the Montgomery trade-secret narrative. No verdict.
• Generac (E.D. Wis.): active; MTD denied; prosecution bar imposed against Champion's own patent prosecutors; severance denied with CO-detection counterclaims folded in; Markman hearing after 2026-09-11; trial posture ~mid-2027.
• Harbor Freight (C.D. Cal.): active after the E.D. Wis. action was dismissed 2025-04-28/29; tentative claim constructions (Oct. 2025) are narrowing for the '780; trial possibly as early as Jan. 2027.
• MWE: "in its early stages" per Champion's 2025 briefing; no verified docket-level detail retrieved; MWE has separately settled as a petitioner in the PTAB proceedings.
• '780 PTAB track: closed in Champion's favor (IPR2025-01185 merits denial; IPR2025-01463 discretionary denial). Institution denials are not appealable, so no Federal Circuit activity on the '780 is expected.
• Westinghouse: the prior section lists Champion's suit against Westinghouse Electric Corp. (D. Nev.) with pro hac vice/local counsel. I could not independently verify that docket, its filing date, or whether the '780 patent is asserted there. Treat it as unconfirmed in this section.
• No settlement, no injunction, no damages award, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, and no appeal exists in any of the '780 cases to date.

---

7. Assessment of the key legal developments

1. The '780 patent has survived two collateral attacks in 2026 (a merits denial at the PTAB and a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal denial at the district court), giving Champion real leverage.
2. But Champion has taken hits on claim scope and on counsel. The C.D. Cal. tentative constructions — especially § 112(f) treatment of "fuel lockout apparatus" with structure limited to item 58 and equivalents, and the "single" mechanical fuel valve — are the kind of rulings that reshape infringement and invalidity positions simultaneously. And both the D. Ariz. (2024-10-18) and E.D. Wis. (2025-09-17) courts have now branded Ziolkowski and Fritz competitive decisionmakers, forcing Champion to wall off its own prosecution team.
3. The inequitable-conduct theory has gone viral across the campaign — Firman originated it (RD9000E), Generac mirrored it, and Harbor Freight copied Generac's answer nearly word-for-word. That is a single point of failure for the entire 2015 family (which includes the '780).
4. The Montgomery thread is the connective tissue. Champion's motion to compel his deposition (transferred from D. Ariz. to E.D. Wis. in Oct.–Nov. 2025) targets the same witness used by Firman to defeat Champion's diligence challenge, and by Generac/HFT to support system-art invalidity. How that deposition dispute resolved is not reflected in the records I retrieved.

Principal sources: PTAB POPR and petition documents in IPR2025-01185, -00805, -00951, -01272, -01463 (ptacts.uspto.gov; docketalarm.com); Champion Power Equip., Inc. v. Generac Power Sys., Inc., No. 24-cv-1281-LA (E.D. Wis.), ECF 1, 10–11, 21, 30, 37–38, 47, 59 and the Omnibus Decision and Order (Sept. 17, 2025), wied.uscourts.gov; Champion Power Equip., Inc. v. Firman Power Equip. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02371-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.), Docs. 24, 61, 95, 104, 111, 114, 115, 116, 124 and the reconsideration order; Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equip., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-08722-SVW-AS (C.D. Cal.), Compl. (Oct. 9, 2024) and Civil Minutes (Oct. 15, 2025). Dates for the Generac Rule 12(b)(6) ruling and the Firman reconsideration denial are approximate; all others are as filed.

The counsel of record representing the Petitioners (referred to as "plaintiff(s)" in the prompt context) in IPR2025-01185, initially included attorneys for MWE Equipment Sales, LLC, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., and Generac Power Systems, Inc. While MWE and Harbor Freight subsequently withdrew from the IPR due to settlements with the Patent Owner, Generac Power Systems, Inc. remained a petitioner.

Here is the identified counsel:

For Generac Power Systems, Inc. (Remaining Petitioner)

• Thomas J. Leach
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Thomas Leach is noted as counsel for Generac in related district court litigation, indicating experience in patent infringement defense.
• Taylor R. Stemler
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Taylor Stemler is listed as back-up counsel in IPR proceedings.
• Joseph Dubis
  • Role: Counsel (in related district court case)
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Named counsel for Generac in a patent infringement suit brought by Champion Power Equipment.
• Michael A. Erbele
  • Role: Counsel (in related district court case)
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Named counsel for Generac in a patent infringement suit brought by Champion Power Equipment.
• Elisabeth S. Muirhead
  • Role: Counsel (in related district court case)
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Named counsel for Generac in a patent infringement suit brought by Champion Power Equipment.
• Paige S. Stradley
  • Role: Counsel (in related district court case)
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Named counsel for Generac in a patent infringement suit brought by Champion Power Equipment.
• Gabrielle Kiefer
  • Role: Counsel (in related district court case)
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Named counsel for Generac in a patent infringement suit brought by Champion Power Equipment.

For MWE Equipment Sales, LLC (Withdrew as Petitioner)

• Thomas A. Walsh
  • Role: Counsel (requested withdrawal)
  • Firm: Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN
  • Experience Note: Requested withdrawal as counsel for MWE in multiple IPRs.
• Thomas A. Rammer
  • Role: Counsel (requested withdrawal)
  • Firm: Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN
  • Experience Note: Requested withdrawal as counsel for MWE in multiple IPRs.
• Alexas D. Siliunas
  • Role: Counsel (requested withdrawal)
  • Firm: Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN
  • Experience Note: Requested withdrawal as counsel for MWE in multiple IPRs.

For Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (Withdrew as Petitioner)

• Michael R. Houston
  • Role: Lead Counsel (sought to withdraw)
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Experience Note: Sought to withdraw as lead counsel for Harbor Freight in IPR proceedings due to settlement.
• Jeffrey S. Gundersen
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (sought to withdraw)
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Experience Note: Sought to withdraw as back-up counsel for Harbor Freight in IPR proceedings.
• Kimberly K. Dodd
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (sought to withdraw)
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Experience Note: Sought to withdraw as back-up counsel for Harbor Freight in IPR proceedings.

In IPR2025-01185, Champion Power Equipment, Inc. ("Patent Owner") successfully defended its patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,221,780, with the PTAB denying institution on the merits. The Patent Owner has been represented by a combination of intellectual property boutique firms and larger general practice firms in this and related litigation.

Here is the identified counsel for Champion Power Equipment, Inc.:

For Champion Power Equipment, Inc. (Patent Owner)

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI
  • Experience Note: Mr. Ziolkowski is a principal at ZPSG, a firm specializing in patent prosecution and litigation for Champion Power Equipment. He was involved in inspecting competitor products and drafting complaints in related district court cases. He has been identified as a competitive decision-maker for Champion in other district court cases.
• Jacob M. Fritz
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fritz, like Mr. Ziolkowski, is involved in both patent prosecution and litigation for Champion and has been identified as a competitive decision-maker.
• Joseph W. Staley
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Staley is a litigator at PKH, a firm that has secured multiple victories for Champion in IPR challenges, including those where USPTO Director John Squires overturned initial institution decisions.
• Scott P. Amy
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Amy is a litigator at PKH, actively involved in defending Champion in IPR proceedings.
• Thomas Finch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Finch is a litigator at PKH, part of the team successfully representing Champion in IPR challenges.
• Thomas P. Heneghan
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison, WI
  • Experience Note: Mr. Heneghan is listed as counsel for Champion in related district court patent infringement litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc. and Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. Husch Blackwell is a larger firm that handles litigation for Champion.
• Jennifer Elizabeth Hoekel
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO
  • Experience Note: Ms. Hoekel is listed as counsel for Champion in related district court patent infringement litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc. and Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc.
• Sharif Ahmed
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Phoenix, AZ
  • Experience Note: Mr. Ahmed is listed as counsel for Champion in related district court patent infringement litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc.
• Kimberly Gutierrez
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Experience Note: Ms. Gutierrez is listed as counsel for Champion in related district court patent infringement litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc. and Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc.
• Avery Hitchcock
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Milwaukee, WI
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hitchcock is listed as counsel for Champion in related district court patent infringement litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc.
• David G. Barker
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Snell & Wilmer LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. Barker is listed as counsel for Champion in a patent infringement action against Firman Power Equipment Inc.
• Zachary G. Schroeder
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Snell & Wilmer LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. Schroeder is listed as counsel for Champion in a patent infringement action against Firman Power Equipment Inc.
• Daniel M. Staren
  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel
  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically from an out-of-state firm)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Staren was granted permission to practice pro hac vice for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in a district court case against Westinghouse Electric Corporation et al.
• R. Scott Weide
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but generally a Nevada firm based on the case location)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Weide was designated as local counsel for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in a district court case in Nevada.