Untitled case

The patent infringement litigation, Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., case number 1:26-cv-00059, was filed on March 6, 2026, in the Tennessee Eastern District Court. The plaintiff, Holley Performance Products Inc., is a well-established operating company and a leading manufacturer and distributor of high-performance automotive aftermarket parts, specializing in fuel systems like carburetors, fuel injectors, and EFI (Electronic Fuel Injection) systems. The defendant, Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., is also an operating company, a technology-driven provider of engine management systems and ignition components, including various EFI systems for automotive enthusiasts. The case is being presided over by District Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger. The venue in the Eastern District of Tennessee is likely due to Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.'s U.S. headquarters being located in Chattanooga, TN.

The sole patent at issue is US Patent 10,570,866. Holley Performance Products Inc. alleges that Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.'s aftermarket EFI systems infringe on claims related to "annular ring" and "fuel distribution ring" technology. A technical sketch of US Patent 10,570,866 indicates it is directed to a fuel distribution device for an internal combustion engine, featuring a body with a fuel passage and an annular distribution ring having multiple apertures to deliver fuel. This patent enables precise and even fuel delivery within engine systems. The accused products are Aces Fuel Injection's various EFI systems, such as their Throttle Body Injection (TBI) kits (e.g., Killshot, Deuces Wild) and Multi-Port EFI (MPEFI) systems (e.g., Wild Card, Royal Flush, Jackpot Series), which are designed for converting or upgrading engine fuel systems.

This case is notable as a direct competitor dispute between two operating companies in the automotive performance aftermarket, highlighting potential technological rivalries in the EFI system market. While the case is marked "litigation Critical," the specific reasons for this designation beyond the general importance of the claims to the parties are not publicly detailed in the early stages of the litigation. As of the current date, no related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerning US Patent 10,570,866 have been identified at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The litigation is currently in its early stages, with initial discovery orders and responsive pleadings, including an amended answer and counterclaims from Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection Inc. (1:26-cv-00059)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Tennessee Eastern District Court, concerns U.S. Patent 10570866. As of July 27, 2026, the case is in its early stages, moving towards discovery, with no final disposition yet.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2026-03-06): Holley Performance Products Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a patent infringement complaint against Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The nature of the suit is categorized as "830 Patent" (Patent Infringement).
• Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim (prior to 2026-05-08): Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. filed an initial answer to the complaint, which included counterclaims against Holley Performance Products Inc. The exact date of this initial filing is not specified in available records.
• Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (2026-03-25): An order was issued granting a motion for leave for John Rondini to appear pro hac vice, indicating the involvement of counsel from outside the district.
• Order to Confer (2026-04-02): District Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. ordered the parties to confer and return an attached form, likely related to case management or scheduling.
• Joint Motion for Extension of Time (2026-04-22): A joint motion was filed by Holley Performance Products Inc. seeking an extension of time for the defendant to file an amended answer and counterclaims, and for the plaintiff to respond to any such amended counterclaims.
• Order Granting Extension (2026-04-23): Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger granted the joint motion, setting new deadlines. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. was directed to file any amended answer and/or counterclaims by May 8, 2026, and Holley Performance Products Inc. was to answer or otherwise respond to any such counterclaims by May 22, 2026.
• Amended Answer and Counterclaim (2026-05-08): Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint, along with an Amended Counterclaim.
• Order on Motion for Extension of Time and Discovery Obligations (2026-06-08): The court issued an order granting another joint motion for an extension of time (Doc. 26). Significantly, the parties were also ordered to complete the obligations set forth in the Patent Case Discovery Conference Order (Doc. 25) no later than 45 days from this date. This indicates the case is actively moving into the discovery phase.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:
Beyond the noted motions for extensions of time, publicly available docket information does not indicate any substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, or motions for summary judgment at this early stage of the litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, nor have any Markman hearing dates or orders been identified.

Discovery Milestones:
While specific discovery milestones are not detailed, the June 8, 2026 order to complete obligations set forth in the Patent Case Discovery Conference Order (Doc. 25) confirms that the parties are engaged in the initial phases of discovery.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
Given the case's recent filing date (March 2026), it has not yet proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case currently remains active and open, with no indication of settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A review of publicly available information, including searches against the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), did not reveal any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings initiated against U.S. Patent 10570866.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Holley Performance Products Inc.

In the patent infringement case 1:26-cv-00059, Holley Performance Products Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from Brooks Kushman and Miller & Martin, PLLC.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel:

• John P. Rondini

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman
  • Office Location: Royal Oak, Michigan (based on a docket entry showing a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, indicating a non-local firm)
  • Experience Note: As a named attorney from Brooks Kushman, a firm known for intellectual property law, Mr. Rondini likely has significant experience in patent litigation.

• Yasmeen Moradshahi

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman
  • Office Location: Likely Royal Oak, Michigan (consistent with Brooks Kushman's primary IP practice)
  • Experience Note: Ms. Moradshahi is listed as representing Holley Performance Products Inc., indicating involvement in patent litigation.

• Marc Lorelli

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman
  • Office Location: Likely Royal Oak, Michigan
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lorelli is listed as representing Holley Performance Products Inc., suggesting experience in patent infringement cases.

• Jessica Malloy-Thorpe

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel
  • Firm: Miller & Martin, PLLC
  • Office Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
  • Experience Note: Ms. Malloy-Thorpe's firm has an office in Chattanooga, which is in the Eastern District of Tennessee, suggesting a local counsel role. She is listed as representing Holley Performance Products Inc. in this case.

Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., the defendant in Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. (1:26-cv-00059) in the Tennessee Eastern District Court, is represented by counsel from Brooks Kushman P.C. and Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C..

The identified counsel are:

• John P. Rondini

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appearing pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C., Royal Oak, MI.
  • Experience Note: Co-Chair of Litigation at Brooks Kushman, with extensive experience in patent prosecution, district court and appellate level patent litigation, and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

• Susanne Lodico

  • Role: Counsel of record (likely local counsel).
  • Firm: Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C., Chattanooga, TN.
  • Experience Note: (Further search needed to confirm specific patent litigation experience for this individual, but the firm has a litigation practice).

• John G. Jackson

  • Role: Counsel of record (likely local counsel).
  • Firm: Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C., Chattanooga, TN.
  • Experience Note: (Further search needed to confirm specific patent litigation experience for this individual, but the firm has a litigation practice).

• Peter Alan Newman

  • Role: Counsel of record (likely local counsel).
  • Firm: Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C., Chattanooga, TN.
  • Experience Note: (Further search needed to confirm specific patent litigation experience for this individual, but the firm has a litigation practice).

As of the current date, no in-house counsel for Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. have been identified as appearing on the docket. General contact information for Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. does not list a legal department or in-house counsel involved in litigation.