Untitled case

This active patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01281, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin before Judge Lynn Adelman. The lawsuit pits Champion Power Equipment, Inc. against Generac Power Systems, Inc.. Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is the plaintiff and patent owner, asserting U.S. Patent 11905896 against Generac. It appears both parties are operating companies, given the names and the nature of "Power Equipment" and "Power Systems." However, the specific business activities of each entity beyond what their names suggest and whether Champion operates as an NPE/PAE in this context are not explicitly detailed in the current information.

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent 11905896. A one-line technical sketch of this patent is not yet available from the provided search results and would typically require examining the patent's claims and abstract. The accused product, service, or technology that allegedly infringes this patent has also not been identified in the current search. The procedural posture is early-stage litigation, currently active in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The significance of this particular venue is not immediately apparent from the search results, though it is likely tied to the location of one of the parties' operations or principal place of business, or where alleged infringing sales or activities occur.

The case is notable for the presence of a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00805, where "Patent Owner Champion" is indicated. This suggests Generac, or another party, has challenged the validity of Patent 11905896 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common strategy in patent litigation to contest patentability outside of district court. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the district court litigation. Beyond the IPR linkage, further details regarding industry impact, specific NPE assertion patterns, or broader market context that would make this case particularly notable are not detailed in the available information.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc. (2:24-cv-01281)

This litigation is an active patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, presided over by Judge Lynn Adelman. The case primarily concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,905,896.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Champion Power Equipment, Inc. ("Champion") filed its complaint against Generac Power Systems, Inc. ("Generac") on October 9, 2024, initiating the patent infringement action.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Generac Power Systems, Inc. filed an Answer and Counterclaims, recorded as ECF No. 47 on the docket. The exact filing date of this document is not immediately available from the provided search results but would have followed the complaint.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Scheduling Order Amendment: On September 17, 2025, an order was issued granting Generac's expedited non-dispositive motion to amend the scheduling conference order (Dkt. 29). This amendment revised several key deadlines:
  • Generac's Invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions deadline was extended to September 26, 2025.
  • The Markman (claim construction) hearing, initially scheduled for after May 13, 2026, was moved to after September 11, 2026.
  • The fact discovery cutoff remains 90 days after the court's claim construction order is issued.
• No other substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss for patent eligibility, transfer, or to stay the litigation pending IPR) have been identified from the available search results.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case has not yet reached the claim construction stage. A Markman hearing is scheduled for sometime after September 11, 2026.

Discovery Milestones:

• Beyond the deadlines for infringement and invalidity contentions, and the general fact discovery cutoff linked to the Markman order, specific strategic discovery milestones are not detailed in the provided information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is still in its pre-trial phase, with the Markman hearing not yet held. Therefore, no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The litigation is active and ongoing. No final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached, nor has there been an appeal.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Filings: Two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Generac Power Systems, Inc., along with Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, challenging patents owned by Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
  • IPR2025-00805 targets U.S. Patent No. 10,393,034 B2.
  • IPR2025-00951 targets U.S. Patent No. 10,598,101 B2.
• Effect on Litigation: It is important to note that these IPRs challenge different patents (10,393,034 B2 and 10,598,101 B2) than the patent at issue in this specific district court case (11,905,896). Therefore, these IPRs do not directly impact the asserted patent 11,905,896 in this district court case.
• Status of IPRs: An order was issued on September 18, 2025, in both IPRs concerning Champion's motion to withdraw and substitute counsel, indicating that these IPR proceedings are active. However, there is no information to suggest that the district court case 2:24-cv-01281 has been stayed pending the outcome of these particular IPRs.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Champion Power Equipment, Inc., in the patent infringement case 2:24-cv-01281 in the Wisconsin Eastern District Court:

From Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC:

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski (Partner)
  • Firm: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in patent prosecution and participates in related patent litigation. Ziolkowski was recently found to be a competitive decisionmaker for Champion in another district court case, a finding that was considered in the context of a patent prosecution bar in this case.
• Jacob M. Fritz (Attorney)
  • Firm: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation for Champion. Fritz was recently found to be a competitive decisionmaker for Champion in another district court case, a finding that was considered in the context of a patent prosecution bar in this case.

From Husch Blackwell LLP:

• Thomas P. Heneghan (Partner)
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison, WI.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent infringement litigation for Champion.
• Kimberly Gutierrez (Attorney)
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP (office location not specified in direct case links, but likely Madison, WI, given other firm members listed there).
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion Power Equipment Inc. in this patent infringement case.
• Avery Hitchcock (Attorney)
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Milwaukee, WI.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion Power Equipment Inc. in this patent infringement case.
• Jennifer Elizabeth Hoekel (Partner)
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion Power Equipment Inc. in this patent infringement case.
• Sharif Ahmed (Partner)
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Phoenix, AZ.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion Power Equipment Inc. in this patent infringement case.

Co-counsel in related PTAB IPR proceedings (likely also involved in district court strategy):

While specifically noted for their role in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH) litigators are mentioned as co-counsel alongside Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC attorneys in matters related to Champion's patents being challenged by Generac. Their direct appearance in the district court case 2:24-cv-01281 is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but their role as co-counsel in parallel proceedings is significant.

• Joseph W. Staley (Litigator)
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH), Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion in IPR proceedings, particularly in strategic advocacy concerning claim construction and director reviews.
• Scott P. Amy (Litigator)
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH), Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion in IPR proceedings.
• Thomas Finch (Litigator)
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH), Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Represents Champion in IPR proceedings.

In the patent infringement case Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01281, Generac Power Systems, Inc. is represented by counsel from two law firms: Merchant & Gould PC and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.

The counsel of record for Generac Power Systems, Inc. are:

From Merchant & Gould PC:

• Thomas J. Leach (Lead Counsel) - Minneapolis, MN office.
• Gabrielle Kiefer (Lead Counsel) - Minneapolis, MN office.
• Joseph Dubis (Counsel) - Firm's office location not specified in search results.
• Michael A. Erbele (Counsel) - Firm's office location not specified in search results.
• Elisabeth S. Muirhead (Counsel) - Firm's office location not specified in search results.
• Paige S. Stradley (Counsel) - Firm's office location not specified in search results.

From Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC:

• Monica A. Mark (Counsel) - Madison, WI office.
• Paul J. Stockhausen (Counsel) - Milwaukee, WI office.

Regarding in-house counsel for Generac, Raj Kanuru serves as the Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of Generac Power Systems. He joined Generac in 2013 after serving as in-house counsel at Caterpillar Inc. and as Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Progress Rail Services Inc. Nicole Trevino is also listed as Corporate Counsel - Litigation for Generac Power Systems. However, it is not explicitly stated whether Generac's in-house counsel are formally appearing as counsel of record in this specific patent infringement case.

Information regarding specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for each individual attorney was not readily available in the provided search results beyond their appearance in this case.