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.

I'll research the counsel of record for the parties in this matter. Let me start with targeted searches on the IPR itself and the parallel district court cases.

I found substantial information. Let me drill down on the specific IPR's counsel of record and the parallel district court defense teams.

I have a strong picture forming. Let me verify the district court defense teams and the current status of the IPR's petitioner-side counsel.

Framing: who counts as the "defendant" here

This docket (IPR2025‑01271) is a PTAB trial, not an infringement action, so there is no plaintiff/defendant caption. The party that occupies the "defendant" seat — the challenger accused of infringement in the parallel district court suits — is the Petitioner group: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. ("HFT"), Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC, all of whom are named infringement defendants in Champion's district court complaints (or countered-against in HFT's declaratory judgment action). I've therefore compiled (A) petitioner-side counsel of record in the IPR and (B) defense counsel in the underlying infringement suits, per defendant. I've also flagged a correction to the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section, which said no counsel could be identified — that is no longer accurate.

⚠️ Note on the record: I could not reach PACER directly. Everything below comes from PTAB filings (ptacts.uspto.gov), PTAB docket-mirror sites (docketalarm, gaeflex), Justia's docket for E.D. Wis. 2:24-cv-01281, and documents filed as IPR exhibits. Individual attorney "notable cases" are limited to what the public record in this matter shows — I have not invented credentials.

---

A. Petitioner side — counsel of record in IPR2025‑01271

A.1 As designated in the Petition / mandatory notices (Sept. 2025)

The joint petition set out a combined lead/backup team spanning three firms (designations quoted from the Petition's § 42.8(b)(3) counsel table, reproduced in IPR2025‑01384/01272 petition documents):

Firm-to-client mapping (from separate powers of attorney filed in the companion IPRs, not from the joint ʼ398 petition itself): HFT appointed Foley & Lardner (Houston lead; Dodd and Gundersen backup) in IPR2025‑00805; Generac appointed Merchant & Gould (Leach and Stemler) in IPR2025‑01463; MWE is aligned with Ice Miller, which also serves as MWE's district court counsel (see §B.3). Treat that mapping as a reasoned inference from the POAs rather than an express statement in the ʼ398 petition.

A.2 Current status — critical update: HFT and MWE have settled out

On January 20, 2026, the Board granted HFT's and MWE's unopposed motions to terminate and withdrew their IPR counsel: "the Settling Petitioners' motions to withdraw counsel Thomas A. Walsh, Thomas A. Rammer, Alexas D. Siliunas, Michael R. Houston, Jeffrey S. Gundersen, and Kimberly K. Dodd from these proceedings are granted," and "Generac Power Systems, Inc. remains as a petitioner." The order lists IPR2025‑01271 (Patent 10,697,398 B2) among the proceedings to which it applies, and the "FOR PETITIONER" service block names Thomas J. Leach and Taylor R. Stemler, Merchant & Gould P.C. The settlement agreements were accepted as business-confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

Bottom line: going forward in IPR2025‑01271, the operative petitioner/defense-side counsel of record are Thomas J. Leach (Reg. No. 53,188) and Taylor R. Stemler (Reg. No. 79,777), Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN, appearing for Generac as the sole remaining petitioner. The Ice Miller and Foley & Lardner teams are no longer of record.

• Source: Order — Settlement as to Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71, 42.74 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2026), Paper 38 in IPR2025‑00805 (order states it applies to the listed proceedings including IPR2025‑01271), mirrored at gaeflex staging docket and docketalarm (IPR2025‑01272 Paper 20).

⚠️ Two flags for the case file: (1) I could not independently pull the IPR2025‑01271 docket sheet itself to confirm the termination order was entered in that proceeding (the order's text applies to a listed group that includes 01271); confirm in PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System before relying on it. (2) The earlier case summary states institution on March 3, 2026 — a January 2026 settlement/termination as to two petitioners is consistent with (and would precede) that, but I could not verify the March 3 institution date with the institution decision in hand.

---

B. Defense counsel in the underlying infringement actions, by defendant

B.1 Generac Power Systems, Inc. — defendant in Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01281 (E.D. Wis., Judge Lynn Adelman)

Both firms signed Generac's Rule 7(h) motions, its motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10), its first amended answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 30), and its "Sotera-plus" invalidity stipulations (e.g., the July 23, 2025 and Aug. 13, 2025 stipulations filed as IPR exhibits). Stockhausen/Mark are the Wisconsin-qualified pair; Merchant & Gould supplies the patent-specific and PTAB bench. Notices of appearance: Dkt. 8 (Stockhausen), 9 (Mark), 13 (Leach/Kiefer), Dec. 4, 2024.

B.2 Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. — defendant in Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01302 (E.D. Wis.) and declaratory-judgment plaintiff in Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-08722-SVW-AS (C.D. Cal., Judge Stephen V. Wilson)

Quinn Emanuel signed the C.D. Cal. complaint (Doc. 1, filed Oct. 9, 2024) and appear on the C.D. Cal. docket, with pro hac vice orders entered by Judge Olguin (Docs. 18, 19, 22, 23) designating Grable as local counsel. Note the posture: in C.D. Cal. HFT is the plaintiff; it is the defendant in the E.D. Wis. case (Champion's suit dismissed Apr. 28, 2025 under the first-to-file rule) and the counterclaim-defendant in C.D. Cal.

⚠️ Two gaps: (1) I found no appearance of record for HFT's counsel in the dismissed E.D. Wis. action (2:24-cv-01302) — that docket's public entries I could retrieve show Champion-side counsel (Heneghan, Ziolkowski, Fritz), not HFT's Wisconsin counsel; assume nothing. (2) HFT's IPR counsel was Foley & Lardner (Houston/Dodd/Gundersen), a different firm from its district court firm — a split worth noting, and now mooted by the settlement.

B.3 MWE Investments, LLC (with Midwest Equipment Sales, LLC) — defendants in Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-00239 (D. Nev., Judge Anne R. Traum)

Signature block on the defendants' Aug. 29, 2025 stipulation regarding invalidity grounds for the ʼ895, ʼ398, and ʼ145 patents (filed as IPR exhibit Champion‑EX2083): "Attorneys for Defendants Midwest Equipment Sales, LLC and MWE Investments, LLC." The same filing confirms MWE filed IPR2025‑01271 on the ʼ398 patent and stipulated (broader than Sotera) to forgo duplicative district court invalidity grounds. Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, LLC were voluntarily dismissed (ECF No. 39) and are no longer defendants.

---

C. Correction to the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section

The prior section stated counsel for this matter could not be identified. That is incorrect — the Patent Owner's team is fully documented in the Board record, and I'll note it briefly here only because it is needed to line up against the defense side (not to repeat a full plaintiff analysis):

• Lead counsel: Joseph W. Staley (Reg. No. 60,732), Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, GA.
• Backup: Timothy J. Ziolkowski (Reg. No. 38,368) and Jacob M. Fritz (Reg. No. 71,459), Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group, SC, Port Washington, WI.
• Scott P. Amy (partner, Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt; provisionally recognized PTAB attorney, pro hac vice) and Thomas F. Finch (Reg. No. 82,341), Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt — see Amy's Nov. 10, 2025 declaration in IPR2025‑01271.
• In related IPRs, Husch Blackwell LLP (Daisy Manning, Reg. No. 66,369; Jennifer E. Hoekel, Reg. No. 48,330; Thomas P. Heneghan; Karen Luong) also appears for Champion, and Husch Blackwell/Quinn Emanuel are the opposing district court pairs.

⚠️ Cross-reference caution: because the two sides overlap institutionally (Husch Blackwell is Champion's district court counsel; Ice Miller/Foley/Merchant & Gould are the petitioners' IPR counsel), be careful not to attribute a PTAB filing to the district court firm without checking the caption.

---

D. Confidence and limits

• High confidence: the petitioner-side counsel table, the January 20, 2026 settlement/withdrawal order and Merchant & Gould as Generac's remaining counsel; Generac's Merchant & Gould + Reinhart trial team; HFT's Quinn Emanuel team in C.D. Cal.; MWE/Midwest Equipment Sales' Ice Miller + Lex Tecnica team in D. Nev.
• Medium confidence (inferred, not stated in the ʼ398 petition itself): which of Ice Miller / Foley / Merchant & Gould represented which individual petitioner in the joint ʼ398 petition — derived from separate POAs in companion IPRs.
• Unverified: the IPR2025‑01271 docket sheet itself (termination order application, institution decision date of March 3, 2026, any updated mandatory notices in 01271 post-settlement); HFT's E.D. Wis. defense counsel in 2:24-cv-01302; whether additional backup counsel have since been added in 01271.
• No sealed counsel issues: nothing in the record suggests counsel information is under seal; only the settlement agreements (Exs. 1090/1300) were designated business-confidential.