Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC

Case Overview and Background: Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Champion Power Equipment, Inc. against MWE Investments, LLC in the Nevada District Court (Case No. 2:25-cv-00844), involved two operating companies competing in the power equipment market. The case was initiated in 2025 and concluded with a dismissal on December 30, 2025.

The plaintiff, Champion Power Equipment, Inc., is a well-established operating company specializing in the design, manufacture, and sale of various power generation equipment, including portable generators, home standby generators, inverters, engines, winches, and log splitters. Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, Champion is recognized for its innovation in multi-fuel generator technology. The defendant, MWE Investments, LLC, is also an operating company, based in Ohio, which manufactures and licenses the Westinghouse brand mark for outdoor power equipment, notably portable generators and related accessories. This positions the dispute as a direct competitor-versus-competitor action within the power equipment industry.

The sole patent asserted in this litigation was U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895, titled "Portable power station having a user interface and methods of operation thereof." This patent generally relates to advanced features and operational methods for portable power stations, likely aiming to enhance user interaction and control over such devices. Given the businesses of both parties, the accused products were almost certainly MWE Investments' portable power stations or generators sold under the Westinghouse brand that allegedly incorporate the technology claimed in the '895 patent.

The procedural posture of the case saw it filed in the Nevada District Court, a venue that holds significance for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. due to its headquarters being located in Las Vegas, Nevada. While not a primary hub for patent litigation nationally, the District of Nevada handles patent cases, and historical data indicates that voluntary or stipulated dismissals are common termination outcomes. The case's relatively swift dismissal within the same year it was filed highlights an efficient resolution, though the specific terms of the dismissal (e.g., settlement) are not publicly detailed in the provided information. The assigned judge for this particular case (2:25-cv-00844) is not explicitly named in public search results, though a related case involving the same parties in the District of Nevada (3:2025cv00239) listed Judge Anne R. Traum and Referring Judge Carla Baldwin. This case is notable as an operating company pursuing infringement claims against a direct competitor over technology related to their core product offerings, rather than a patent assertion entity (PAE) assertion.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00844, in the Nevada District Court:

Case Overview:
The patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Champion Power Equipment, Inc. against MWE Investments, LLC in the Nevada District Court. The case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895. The litigation was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2025.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Champion Power Equipment, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against MWE Investments, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895. The precise filing date of the complaint is not available from the provided search results but occurred in 2025.
  • Details regarding MWE Investments, LLC's answer or any counterclaims are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

• Pre-Trial Motions & Discovery:

  • While specific pre-trial motions are not detailed, the existence of an "Amended Scheduling Order" in the "MWE Litigation" (referring to 2:25-cv-00844) suggests that the case progressed beyond initial pleadings and entered into a discovery or scheduling phase. However, no specific milestones or rulings on substantive motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, or summary judgment) are available.
  • There is no information available regarding claim construction (Markman) outcomes or significant discovery events.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • MWE Investments, LLC, the defendant in the district court litigation, filed a petition (or petitions) for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. These proceedings are referenced as "MWE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Petitioners v. CHAMPION Power Equipment, Inc." before the PTAB. The filing of these petitions indicates a challenge to the validity of the patent asserted in the district court case. The outcome or impact of these PTAB proceedings on the litigation is not specified in the provided search results.

• Final Disposition:

  • The case was terminated on December 30, 2025, with a status of "Dismissed." The dismissal was with prejudice. This typically indicates a final resolution of the claims, often as a result of a settlement between the parties. However, the specific terms or nature of the dismissal (e.g., voluntary, stipulated, or by court order details) are not detailed in the provided information.

No information regarding trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or appeals is available, consistent with a dismissal prior to those stages.## Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC: Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement case of Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00844, filed in the Nevada District Court, concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on December 30, 2025. The litigation centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895.

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Champion Power Equipment, Inc. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against MWE Investments, LLC in 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895. The precise filing date of the complaint is not publicly detailed in the available search results.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Information regarding MWE Investments, LLC's answer to the complaint or any counterclaims filed is not available in the provided search results.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• No specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending inter partes review (IPR) were detailed in the search results. An "Amended Scheduling Order" was mentioned in the context of the "MWE Litigation" (2:25-cv-00844), suggesting the case progressed through initial case management.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The available information does not indicate that the case reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or that any Markman order was issued.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance were identified in the search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial. Therefore, there are no verdicts or post-trial motions to report.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Dismissal with Prejudice: The litigation was dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2025. A dismissal with prejudice typically signifies a final resolution of the claims, often preceding or following a settlement agreement between the parties, preventing the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims in the future. The specific details of the dismissal order are not publicly available in the provided search results.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Filings: MWE Investments, LLC, the defendant in the district court case, filed several inter partes review (IPR) petitions against patents owned by Champion Power Equipment, Inc., including IPR2025-01463 directed at U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895.
• Institution Decisions: IPR2025-01463 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,905,895, as well as IPR2025-01271 (U.S. Patent No. 10,697,398) and IPR2025-01272 (U.S. Patent No. 11,492,985), were all "Not Instituted - Procedural." The institution decision for IPR2025-01463 was made on March 17, 2026, while the decisions for IPR2025-01271 and IPR2025-01272 were made on January 27, 2026.
• Effect on Litigation: The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome for the IPRs indicates that the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patentability challenges. This could be due to various reasons, including discretionary denials by the PTAB Director, which became more prominent in 2025. Such procedural denials would mean the district court litigation would not have been stayed pending a final written decision from the PTAB. However, the exact interplay between the IPR outcomes and the December 2025 dismissal of the district court case is not explicitly detailed in the provided information. It is possible that the parties reached a settlement that encompassed both the district court case and the IPR proceedings, or the procedural denial influenced the parties' litigation strategy leading to dismissal.

Due to the dismissed status of the case Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC (2:25-cv-00844) in the Nevada District Court, and without direct PACER access to its specific docket, the counsel of record for this particular case cannot be definitively identified from publicly available search results.

However, Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is frequently represented in other patent infringement litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by attorneys from the following firms: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Husch Blackwell LLP, and Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH). The attorneys below have consistently appeared as counsel for Champion in related patent matters.

Here is an overview of prominent counsel who represent Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in patent litigation, based on appearances in other related cases:

Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski

  • Role: Registered Patent Attorney (Lead Counsel/Co-counsel in other matters).
  • Firm & Office Location: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Tim Ziolkowski is a U.S. Patent Office Registered Patent Attorney with a background in electrical, mechanical, and software engineering. He specializes in providing IP counseling, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters, and has been involved in prosecuting patents for Champion while also participating in related litigation.

• Jacob M. Fritz

  • Role: Registered Patent Attorney (Co-counsel in other matters).
  • Firm & Office Location: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jake Fritz is a Patent Attorney specializing in preparing and prosecuting patent applications, analyzing patent portfolios, evaluating patent scope, and advising on international patent filings. He has a background in electrical engineering and has represented Champion in patent litigation.

Husch Blackwell LLP

• Jennifer Elizabeth Hoekel

  • Role: Partner (Lead Trial Counsel in other matters).
  • Firm & Office Location: Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jennifer Hoekel is a highly regarded IP litigator who serves as lead trial counsel in high-stakes cases across various intellectual property disputes, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, in federal courts, the USPTO, and the ITC. She has argued appeals before the Federal Circuit and navigates IPR proceedings.

• Thomas P. Heneghan

  • Role: Senior Counsel (Counsel in other matters).
  • Firm & Office Location: Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison, WI (and other offices nationwide).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Tom Heneghan is a seasoned litigator focusing on patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters, with extensive experience in patent litigation in federal and state courts across the U.S. and arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Sharif Ahmed

  • Role: Partner (Counsel in other matters).
  • Firm & Office Location: Husch Blackwell LLP, Phoenix, AZ (and other offices nationwide).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Sharif Ahmed's national practice encompasses all aspects of intellectual property litigation, including design and utility patents, trademarks, and trade dress. He has served as third chair in federal jury and bench trials and contributes to post-grant IPR proceedings.

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH)

• Joseph W. Staley

  • Role: Member (Litigator/Co-counsel in IPR proceedings).
  • Firm & Office Location: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joseph Staley is experienced in all aspects of intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright disputes, and counsels clients on patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, and developing corporate IP strategies. He was previously a patent examiner at the USPTO.

• Scott P. Amy

  • Role: Partner (Litigator/Co-counsel in IPR proceedings).
  • Firm & Office Location: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Scott Amy has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret litigation in district courts, PTAB proceedings, TTAB proceedings, and ITC investigations.

• Thomas Finch

  • Role: Associate (Litigator/Co-counsel in IPR proceedings).
  • Firm & Office Location: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Thomas Finch focuses his practice on enforcing patent rights before district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has experience with pre-litigation diligence, validity and enforceability investigations, and freedom to operate opinions.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing MWE Investments, LLC in Champion Power Equipment, Inc. v. MWE Investments, LLC, case number 2:25-cv-00844, likely include the following attorneys. Although direct docket entries for this specific case were not immediately accessible via web search to confirm all appearances, these attorneys were identified as representing MWE Investments, LLC in a closely related patent infringement case in the District of Nevada (3:2025cv00239), and Nevada local rules often require local counsel for out-of-state attorneys.

Here are the identified attorneys:

• F. Christopher Austin

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Lex Tecnica, Ltd.
  • Office Location: Nevada (implied by local counsel role for District of Nevada cases)
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Austin is a highly experienced commercial litigator and intellectual property lawyer with over 30 years of trial experience. He heads the IP practice at Lex Tecnica, Ltd., prosecuting and defending patent, copyright, and trademark infringement actions. His notable cases include securing the seizure of infringing lawnmowers and tractors, preventing the importation of knock-off Gibson Les Paul guitars, and obtaining court orders to seize infringing Cartier watches and Dooney and Burke handbags.

• T. Earl LeVere

  • Role: Of Counsel (filed for pro hac vice admission with F. Christopher Austin as local counsel)
  • Firm: Ice Miller LLP
  • Office Location: Columbus, Ohio
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. LeVere is a partner at Ice Miller focusing on intellectual property and information technology, including patents, copyrights, and trademarks. He has appeared in over seventy-five intellectual property litigation matters in federal district and appellate courts nationwide. His experience includes successfully defending an online service against patent infringement claims that resulted in a summary judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidation, and representing a motorcycle parts manufacturer in a patent infringement suit that led to the competitor paying the client's attorneys' fees and costs. He is recognized as a "Super Lawyer" for Intellectual Property Litigation.

• Thomas A. Rammer II

  • Role: Of Counsel (filed for pro hac vice admission with F. Christopher Austin as local counsel)
  • Firm: Ice Miller LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Rammer is Of Counsel in Ice Miller's Intellectual Property Group with broad federal trial experience in pharmaceutical, semiconductor, and software patent matters. He has experience in all aspects of the litigation process, including jury trial closing arguments, patent claim construction, and preparing for Federal Circuit appeals. He is recognized as a "Leading Lawyer" in Intellectual Property Law and Patent Law.