Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,697,398. The Petitioners are Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC. The Patent Owner is Champion Power Equipment, Inc.. All parties appear to be operating companies involved in equipment or tools. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is known for manufacturing generators, inverters, log splitters, and other power equipment. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. is a retailer of tools and equipment, while Generac Power Systems, Inc. manufactures power generation products. MWE Investments, LLC's specific business in relation to this patent is not immediately clear from the IPR filing, but given the co-petitioners, it likely relates to similar industries.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,697,398, is titled "Power system with remote control." A quick technical sketch suggests the patent covers aspects of power systems that can be operated or controlled remotely. The specific accused products or services that led to this IPR are not detailed in the IPR filing itself, as IPRs focus on patentability. However, the involvement of these particular Petitioners suggests the patent owner, Champion Power Equipment, Inc., may have asserted this patent in district court litigation against products offered by Harbor Freight and Generac, likely relating to generators or power equipment with remote start or control features.

This IPR, IPR2025-01271, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted. The PTAB is an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that conducts trials regarding the patentability of claims in an issued patent. The institution of an IPR signifies that the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. While the prompt states the status as "Instituted," the specific Board members or division are not typically listed in the initial IPR overview but would be found in the institution decision. The PTAB venue is significant as it provides an alternative forum to district courts for challenging patent validity, often seen as a more cost-effective and faster route for accused infringers. The case is notable as it involves multiple operating companies challenging a competitor's patent, suggesting active competition and potential infringement disputes in the power equipment industry.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigations related to U.S. Patent 10,697,398, which is the subject of IPR2025-01271.

I. Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01271)

• Case Number: IPR2025-01271
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Patent at Issue: US Patent 10,697,398
• Petitioners: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC
• Patent Owner: Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
• Petition Filing Date: September 3, 2025
• Status: Instituted
• Institution Date: March 3, 2026
  • The IPR was instituted, meaning the PTAB will proceed to review the patentability of the challenged claims of US Patent 10,697,398.

II. Related District Court Litigations

The IPR petitioners are defendants or declaratory judgment plaintiffs in separate patent infringement disputes involving Champion Power Equipment and US Patent 10,697,398.

A. Litigation Involving Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

1. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)

   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-08722
   • Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
   • Filing Date: October 9, 2024. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of Champion's patents, including US Patent 10,697,398.
   • Present Posture: This case remains pending.

2. Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (E.D. Wis.)

   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01302
   • Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
   • Filing Date: October 14, 2024. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., asserting 13 utility patents, including US Patent 10,697,398.
   • Pre-trial Motions: Harbor Freight filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case. Champion filed a motion to stay.
   • Outcome: On April 28, 2025, the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed Champion's lawsuit in its entirety. The court applied the "first-to-file" rule, determining that the earlier-filed declaratory judgment action by Harbor Freight in the Central District of California (2:24-cv-08722) should proceed.

B. Litigation Involving Generac Power Systems, Inc.

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-01281
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Filing Date: October 9, 2024. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Generac Power Systems, Inc. infringed eleven of Champion's patents, including US Patent 10,697,398, related to multi-fuel portable generators.
• Initial Pleadings:
  • On December 4, 2024, Generac Power Systems, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement.
  • On January 22, 2025, the court denied Generac's motion to dismiss, finding that Champion's complaint provided sufficient notice of its infringement claims.
  • On February 2, 2025, Generac filed its first answer, asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity for Champion's eleven multi-fuel patents.
  • On May 15, 2025, Generac filed an amended answer to add two counterclaims of infringement by Champion of Generac's patents relating to carbon monoxide detection.
• Discovery Milestones:
  • On June 26, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion for an order regarding discovery of electronically stored information (ESI), which was subsequently granted.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • Champion and Generac jointly filed a Motion for Protective Order. Generac also filed a separate, competing Motion for Protective Order, which included a proposed "patent prosecution bar."
  • Champion filed a Motion to Sever Counterclaims or, in the alternative, for Leave to File an Amended Answer.
  • On September 17, 2025, the court issued an Omnibus Decision and Order addressing these and other pending motions. The court granted the joint motion for ESI discovery and addressed the protective order motions, denying counsel-by-counsel exemptions for Champion's attorneys from the patent prosecution bar.
• Present Posture: This case remains active and ongoing.

C. Litigation Involving MWE Investments, LLC

• Case Number: 3:2025cv00239
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
• Filing Date: May 14, 2025. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against Midwest Equipment Sales, LLC and MWE Investments, LLC, among others.
• Pre-trial Motions: A Motion to Dismiss or Transfer was filed by Defendant Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, LLC.
• Outcome/Status: On September 10, 2025, the court issued an order rendering Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, LLC's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer moot, following a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice for that defendant. MWE Investments, LLC remains a defendant, and the case is pending.

III. Effect of IPR on Litigation

The institution of IPR2025-01271, challenging US Patent 10,697,398, provides the petitioners (Harbor Freight, Generac, and MWE Investments) with an administrative avenue to challenge the validity of the patent outside of district court. While the IPR is pending, it is common for parties in parallel district court litigations to file motions to stay the infringement proceedings. No specific docket entries regarding motions to stay pending the outcome of IPR2025-01271 have been found in the provided search results for the district court cases as of the current date. However, such motions are a likely strategic development.

Unfortunately, I cannot directly access PACER or proprietary legal databases. Therefore, I cannot definitively identify the counsel of record and their specific roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, in-house) for IPR2025-01271 at this time. Filings like the Petition for Inter Partes Review or subsequent docket entries would typically contain this information. Without direct access to these documents, it's impossible to provide the requested details about the attorneys, their firms, office locations, or specific patent litigation experience.

Therefore, I must explicitly state that the counsel information is not available through open web searches for this specific IPR.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01271 counsel for patent owner", "Champion Power Equipment IPR counsel", "US patent 10697398 IPR counsel", "PTAB IPR2025-01271 docket"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in the IPR case IPR2025-01271.
In an IPR, the "defendant" is typically the Patent Owner.
So I need to find the counsel for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in IPR2025-01271.
I will look for their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience.

Steps:

1. Search for the docket of IPR2025-01271 to find the counsel appearances for Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
2. For each identified attorney, research their firm, office location, and relevant experience.The Patent Owner, Champion Power Equipment, Inc., is represented by counsel from Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH) and Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC. These firms are handling Champion's defense in multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges, including IPR2025-01271.

The following attorneys represent Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in IPR2025-01271 and related IPR proceedings:

From Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH):

• Joseph W. Staley
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Experience: Mr. Staley is an intellectual property litigator at PKH, specializing in defending against patent challenges in various forums, including IPRs, district court actions, and USPTO proceedings.
• Scott P. Amy
  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Experience: Mr. Amy is a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney with prior experience in numerous PTAB proceedings, and is involved in Champion's IPR defense.
• Thomas Finch
  • Role: Litigator
  • Firm & Office: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Experience: Mr. Finch is an intellectual property litigator at PKH and is part of the team defending Champion in IPR challenges.

From Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC:

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski
  • Role: Co-counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, Wisconsin
  • Experience: Mr. Ziolkowski is a principal at Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group, a firm that prosecutes patents for Champion and participates in related litigation. He also represents Champion in parallel district court litigation against Generac Power Systems Inc.
• Jacob M. Fritz
  • Role: Co-counsel
  • Firm & Office: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, Wisconsin
  • Experience: Mr. Fritz is associated with Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group and represents Champion in both IPRs and related district court patent litigation, including a case against Generac Power Systems Inc.

While other firms, such as Husch Blackwell LLP, represent Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in district court patent infringement cases against Generac Power Systems Inc., the primary counsel identified for the IPR proceedings are from Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP and Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC.