Untitled case

Case Overview: Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Generac Power Systems Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, filed as Case No. 2:24-cv-01281 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, involves two prominent manufacturers in the power equipment industry: Plaintiff Champion Power Equipment Inc. and Defendant Generac Power Systems Inc. Champion Power Equipment is an American company known for designing and manufacturing a wide range of power equipment, including portable generators, home standby generators, inverter generators, engines, winches, and log splitters, with significant research and development operations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Generac Power Systems, also an American manufacturer, specializes in backup power generation products for residential, light commercial, and industrial markets, and is headquartered in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

The core of the dispute centers on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,143,120, owned by Champion Power Equipment. While the specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries of the complaint without direct docket access, given the nature of both companies' businesses and the ongoing competition in the power generation market, it is highly probable that the asserted patent relates to features or technology found in Generac's multi-fuel or other generator products. U.S. Patent No. 11,143,120, titled "CONTROL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTI-FUEL ENGINE STARTING," broadly describes control systems and methods designed to facilitate the starting of multi-fuel engines. This suggests the dispute likely involves technology enabling generators to operate efficiently with different fuel sources.

The case is currently in its early stages, having been filed on October 9, 2024, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, with Judge Lynn Adelman presiding. This venue is particularly relevant as it is where Generac Power Systems maintains its global headquarters and significant manufacturing and research and development facilities, potentially providing a basis for personal jurisdiction and convenience for the defendant. The litigation is notable not only due to the involvement of two major players in the power equipment sector but also because of a related inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00805. This IPR was filed against Champion Power Equipment by Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. and Generac Power Systems, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,393,034, indicating an ongoing broader patent landscape battle between these competitors, where Generac has actively participated in challenging Champion's patents. This IPR linkage suggests a strategic use of both district court litigation and PTAB proceedings in their competitive landscape.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This section details the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation, Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Generac Power Systems Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01281, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Champion Power Equipment Inc. initiated the lawsuit on October 9, 2024, by filing a patent infringement complaint against Generac Power Systems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
• Protective Order: A stipulated protective order was filed by the parties on October 29, 2024, and subsequently issued by the Court on November 4, 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions: A related case, Champion Power Equipment Incorporated v. Firman Power Equipment Incorporated, Case No. CV-23-02371-PHX-DWL, in which Generac was a subpoena recipient, saw a motion to amend invalidity contentions filed by Firman on February 4, 2025. This motion was granted on February 28, 2025. This development is relevant as Generac's productions were cited as a basis for Firman's desire to amend its invalidity contentions, indicating potential overlap in prior art asserted against Champion's patents.
• Scheduling Order Amendment: On September 17, 2025, an order was issued granting Generac Power Systems, Inc.'s expedited non-dispositive motion to amend the order following a scheduling conference. This amendment primarily concerned the deadline for Generac's Invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions, extending it from August 22, 2025, to September 26, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

The litigation is intertwined with at least one inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning Champion's patents.

• IPR2025-00805: This IPR was filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC against Champion Power Equipment, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,393,034.
  • On September 18, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an order in IPR2025-00805 (and a similar motion in IPR2025-00951) conditionally granting Champion's request to substitute counsel, pending acceptance of powers of attorney and pro hac vice admission for one of the backup attorneys.
  • On February 3, 2026, in IPR2025-00805 and IPR2025-00951, the Director Review process resulted in a decision vacating the decision granting institution and denying institution. This indicates a significant victory for Champion Power Equipment in the PTAB proceedings regarding the '034 patent.
• IPR2025-00951: This IPR, also involving Generac Power Systems, Inc. as a petitioner against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., saw the same Director Review outcome on February 3, 2026, as IPR2025-00805, vacating the institution decision and denying institution.
• IPR2025-01384: This IPR was also noted in a court document from the district court case, further highlighting the ongoing PTAB challenges to Champion's patents.
• IPR2025-01457: Another IPR, IPR2025-01457, also lists Generac Power Systems, Inc. as a petitioner.

Current Posture

As of May 19, 2026, the case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. While a Markman hearing has not yet been explicitly scheduled or reported as concluded, the scheduling order anticipates motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions 240 days after a claim construction order is issued. The activity in related IPRs suggests that the parties are actively contesting the validity of Champion's patents both in district court and before the PTAB. The favorable Director Review outcome for Champion in IPR2025-00805 and IPR2025-00951 regarding the '034 patent could influence the district court litigation, potentially strengthening Champion's position regarding the validity of that patent, though the current case specifically concerns patent 11,143,120.

Plaintiff Champion Power Equipment Inc. is represented by several attorneys from multiple firms in Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Generac Power Systems Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01281.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for Champion Power Equipment Inc.:

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH)

• Joseph W. Staley - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Information not explicitly stated in provided search results, but PKH has been noted for its significant role in patent defense.
  • Experience: Represented Champion Power Equipment in multiple IPR proceedings, securing favorable outcomes, including the overturning of institution decisions by the USPTO Director.
• Scott P. Amy - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Information not explicitly stated in provided search results.
  • Experience: Represented Champion Power Equipment in numerous IPR challenges, contributing to successful defense against patent challenges.
• Thomas Finch - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Information not explicitly stated in provided search results.
  • Experience: Involved in the successful defense of Champion Power Equipment's patents in IPR proceedings.

Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski - Co-counsel.
  • Firm Location: Appears to be based in Wisconsin, given his role as co-counsel alongside PKH.
  • Experience: Acted as co-counsel for Champion in IPR proceedings and is listed as counsel for Champion in the district court case.
• Jacob M. Fritz - Co-counsel.
  • Firm Location: Appears to be based in Wisconsin.
  • Experience: Served as co-counsel for Champion in IPR challenges and is also listed as counsel in the district court action.

Husch Blackwell LLP

• Thomas P. Heneghan - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Husch Blackwell has multiple offices.
• Jennifer Elizabeth Hoekel - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
• Kimberly Gutierrez - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
• Sharif Ahmed - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

Merchant & Gould

• Michael A. Erbele - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Merchant & Gould has several offices.
• Joseph Dubis - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
• Thomas J. Leach - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
• Gabrielle Kiefer - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren Sc.

• Paul J. Stockhausen - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Likely a Wisconsin-based firm, suggesting a local counsel role.
• Monica A. Mark - Counsel.
  • Firm Location: Likely a Wisconsin-based firm.

It is common for patent infringement cases to involve a team of attorneys, including lead counsel specializing in patent litigation and local counsel to assist with venue-specific procedures. The multiple firms and attorneys indicate a comprehensive legal strategy for Champion Power Equipment Inc.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

I have solid initial results. Let me confirm the full appearance list and signature blocks.

Let me verify additional appearances and check for any Milwaukee/Chicago-firm counsel in the district court docket.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Generac Power Systems, Inc.

Generac is represented by a two-firm team: an out-of-state IP boutique handling substantive patent work (Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis) and Wisconsin local counsel (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., Milwaukee/Madison). This is the same core team that appears for Generac in the parallel IPRs and in the ancillary subpoena proceedings.

Firm 1 — Merchant & Gould P.C. (Minneapolis, MN) — substantive/lead patent counsel

Office: Merchant & Gould P.C., 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
Experience note: Merchant & Gould is a Minneapolis-based IP boutique; Leach and Stemler hold Generac's powers of attorney in the parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-01463, U.S. Pat. 11,840,970), and Leach/Dubis were granted pro hac vice in the related ancillary proceeding (D. Ariz. misc. action, transferred to E.D. Wis. as 2:25-mc-00050).

Firm 2 — Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. (Milwaukee/Madison, WI) — local counsel

Experience note: Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren is a Milwaukee-headquartered firm with a deep Wisconsin patent practice; the firm has longstanding trademark/prosecution ties to Generac (e.g., it serves as correspondent of record on Generac's POWERMATE registration, Reg. No. 4,825,288, via attorney Daniel E. Kattman). Stockhausen's contact address in the file appears as both the Milwaukee office (1000 N. Water St., Ste. 1700) and the Madison office (22 E. Mifflin St., Ste. 700).

In-house / non-record personnel

• Everitt Long, Intellectual Property Director, Generac Power Systems, Inc. — signed Generac's power of attorney in IPR2025-01463 (dated 4/18/2025). He is a client representative, not counsel of record in the district court case.
• No in-house attorney has been identified as entering an appearance under D. Ct. L.R. 83.

Counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings (for context, not district-court appearances)

• Generac's own power of attorney in the joint IPRs names Thomas J. Leach and Taylor R. Stemler (Merchant & Gould).
• The joint petitions (Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC) list Ice Miller LLP (Thomas A. Walsh, Indianapolis; Thomas A. Rammer and Aleksas D. Siliunas, Chicago) as lead counsel and Foley & Lardner LLP (Michael Houston, Chicago; Jeffrey S. Gundersen and Kimberly K. Dodd, Milwaukee) among back-up counsel. Those firms appear to be aligned with the co-petitioner side of the joint petitions rather than with Generac, but the filings do not cleanly allocate the team, so I would not attribute Ice Miller/Foley to Generac without checking individual POAs.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the previously generated section

The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section is wrong as to two firms. It lists Merchant & Gould (Leach, Erbele, Dubis, Kiefer) and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. (Stockhausen, Mark) as counsel for Champion. Every primary document contradicts this: the signature blocks on the operative Generac filings read "Attorneys for Defendant" and appear immediately after the "Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff" caption, while the certificates of service on those same documents list the Husch Blackwell attorneys as Champion's counsel. This section supersedes that portion of the earlier section on the case.

Sourcing caveats

• The full-text docket snapshots I could retrieve for 2:24-cv-01281 were last pulled in December 2024 (Justia), so they capture the initial appearance cluster (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 13) but not any later notices of appearance. Filings through September 2025 (stipulations, the L.R. 7(h) motion) continue to be signed by the same Leach/Erbele/Dubis + Stockhausen/Mark team, which is strong evidence no substitution has occurred, but I could not verify a complete, current PACER appearance list.
• No generically sweeping claims here: I found no indication that any Generac counsel's appearance is sealed or under seal, and no indication that Generac is proceeding unrepresented or has not yet appeared — it appeared on December 4, 2024 (ECF Nos. 8–13) and moved to dismiss the same day (ECF Nos. 10–11), a motion Judge Adelman later denied (opinion posted at https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/sites/wied/files/documents/opinions/24-CV-1281%20Champion%20Power%20Equipment%20Inc%20v.%20Generac%20Power%20Systems%20Inc.pdf).
• Attorneys appearing for third-party witness Gregory A. Montgomery in the related ancillary matter (John P. Dyro, Jr.; Aaron T. Olejniczak; E.D. Wis. 2:25-mc-00050, transferred from D. Ariz. 2:25-mc-00037) are not Generac's counsel and are excluded above.