Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The patent infringement litigation involves Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. as the Plaintiff and Champion Power Equipment, Inc. as the Defendant. Harbor Freight Tools is a major privately held American retailer specializing in discount tools and equipment, operating over 1,600 retail locations nationwide and an e-commerce business. They offer a wide range of products including hand tools, power tools, generators, and outdoor power equipment. Champion Power Equipment is an American operating company that designs and manufactures power generation equipment, including portable generators, home standby generators, inverter generators, engines, winches, and log splitters. Champion has stated they hold multiple patents and are a market leader in the power equipment field.

The core of the dispute centers around U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970, titled "Dual fuel generator with remote regulator." This patent generally describes a dual-fuel generator system capable of running on both liquid (e.g., gasoline) and gaseous fuels (e.g., LPG), where the gaseous fuel's pressure regulation is performed by a two-stage system located entirely off-board the main generator housing, with the generator itself being free of such regulators. A mechanical valve on the generator is used for fuel type selection. Champion Power Equipment has asserted this patent, among others, claiming that certain products sold by Harbor Freight Tools infringe their intellectual property. While specific accused products of Harbor Freight are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summary information, the context indicates they are competing power equipment, likely generators.

The case, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08722, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, and is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson, with Judge Alka Sagar as the referred judge. This venue became the primary litigation forum due to the "first-to-file" rule. Harbor Freight preemptively filed a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California on October 9, 2024, after Champion had contacted them regarding potential infringement and indicated intent to sue. Champion subsequently filed its own infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 14, 2024 (Case No. 2:24-cv-01302), asserting thirteen utility patents including the '970 patent. However, the Wisconsin case was dismissed on April 28, 2025, on first-to-file grounds, directing the substantive patent dispute to proceed in California. This procedural outcome highlights the strategic importance of forum selection in patent litigation, particularly when multiple suits between the same parties over related patents are contemplated.

Patent Litigation Update: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Case Caption: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Case Number: 2:24-cv-08722
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970 (among others in parallel proceedings)
Current Status: Active (as of May 16, 2026)

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint (Declaratory Judgment): Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. initiated this action by filing a declaratory judgment complaint against Champion Power Equipment, Inc. in the Central District of California on October 9, 2024. Harbor Freight sought a declaration of non-infringement regarding Champion's patents.
• Answer & Infringement Contentions: Champion Power Equipment filed an answer to Harbor Freight's complaint. Although a formal counterclaim document for infringement was not explicitly detailed in the search results, Champion did submit "Preliminary Infringement Contentions." These contentions included claim charts identifying which claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970 and other patents were allegedly infringed by specific Harbor Freight products, indicating Champion's assertion of infringement within the litigation.
• Parallel Infringement Suit (Wisconsin): Five days after Harbor Freight filed its California declaratory judgment action, Champion filed its own patent infringement lawsuit against Harbor Freight in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 2:24-cv-01302) on October 14, 2024. This suit alleged infringement of thirteen utility patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss/Transfer (California): Champion moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the California declaratory judgment action to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Champion argued that Harbor Freight's filing constituted anticipatory litigation and improper forum shopping.
• California Court Ruling: On February 13, 2025, the Central District of California (Judge Stephen V. Wilson) denied Champion's motion to dismiss or transfer. The court held that Harbor Freight's declaratory judgment action was not anticipatory or improper forum shopping, primarily because Champion had delayed responding to Harbor Freight's licensing request for three months before Harbor Freight filed suit.
• Motion to Dismiss/Transfer (Wisconsin): In the parallel Wisconsin case, Harbor Freight filed a motion to dismiss or transfer. Champion also filed a motion to stay the Wisconsin proceedings.
• Wisconsin Court Ruling: On April 28, 2025, the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed Champion's entire thirteen-count infringement lawsuit. The court applied the first-to-file rule, favoring the earlier-filed California action, and denied Champion's motion to stay as moot. This ruling effectively consolidated the patent dispute into the Central District of California.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• No specific Markman hearing dates or outcomes have been publicly reported for the Central District of California case as of May 16, 2026. Given the case's filing date in late 2024 and the resolution of jurisdictional motions in early 2025, claim construction would likely be scheduled for late 2025 or 2026.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Discovery is ongoing in the Central District of California case. Public records indicate that Harbor Freight has provided "Objections and Responses to Defendant Champion Power Equipment, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 7-15)," signifying that at least two rounds of interrogatories have occurred.

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

• The Central District of California case is still active and has not reached the trial stage. No information regarding trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions is available.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The Central District of California case (2:24-cv-08722) remains active and is proceeding.
• The Eastern District of Wisconsin case (2:24-cv-01302) was dismissed on April 28, 2025, based on the first-to-file rule.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions have been filed against Champion Power Equipment's patents by Harbor Freight Tools, often in conjunction with other entities like Generac Power Systems, Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC:

• IPR2025-01463 (U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970): An IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970—the specific patent asserted in the litigation—was filed by MWE Investments LLC, Generac Power Systems Inc., and Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. on October 7, 2025. On March 17, 2026, the PTAB issued a decision indicating a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, meaning the IPR did not proceed to a full review.
• IPR2025-01271 (U.S. Patent No. 10,697,398): This IPR, also involving Harbor Freight Tools et al. as petitioners against Champion, was filed on September 19, 2025. The PTAB also issued a "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision for this IPR on January 27, 2026.
• IPR2025-00805 (U.S. Patent No. 10,393,034): Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,393,034, with Champion Power Equipment, Inc. as the patent owner.
• IPR2025-01121 (U.S. Patent No. 11,143,120): Filed on June 23, 2025, by Harbor Freight Tools USA Incorporated et al. against Champion Power Equipment Incorporated, this IPR was terminated on December 1, 2025.

The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status for the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,840,970 and 10,697,398 indicates that the PTAB did not grant institution for these reviews, allowing the validity of those patents to continue to be litigated in the district court.

Plaintiff Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The following counsel of record represent Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.:

• David M. Grable

  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel given his listing on primary filings.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, California office.
  • Experience: Quinn Emanuel is a prominent litigation-only firm with a large intellectual property practice. Grable is listed on key filings for the plaintiff.

• Lauren Lindsay

  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, California office.
  • Experience: As with Mr. Grable, Ms. Lindsay is listed on significant filings for the plaintiff in a firm known for its robust intellectual property litigation.

• Eric Huang

  • Role: Counsel (appearing pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, New York office.
  • Experience: Eric Huang is noted as appearing pro hac vice, indicating he is not locally barred in California but is admitted for this specific case. He is from the New York office of Quinn Emanuel, a firm with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation.

Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Husch Blackwell LLP and Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC in the case against Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. in the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-08722).

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Husch Blackwell LLP

• Jennifer Elizabeth Hoekel (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO
  • Experience Note: Also listed as counsel for Champion in other patent infringement cases, including against Generac Power Systems Inc.
• Karen Luong (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Husch Blackwell LLP, likely California office (indicated by CA Bar No. 246809 on a court filing)
  • Experience Note: Signed preliminary infringement contentions on behalf of Champion in this case.
• Sharif S. Ahmed (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Husch Blackwell LLP, Phoenix, AZ
  • Experience Note: Appears as counsel for Champion in other related transfer and disclosure statements.
• Thomas P. Heneghan (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison, WI
  • Experience Note: Also represents Champion in related patent litigation, including against Generac Power Systems Inc. He has been granted pro hac vice admission in other related cases.
• Kimberly Gutierrez (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison, WI
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Champion in other patent litigation.

Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC

• Timothy J. Ziolkowski (Of Counsel/Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI
  • Experience Note: Has represented Champion in multiple patent litigation matters, including IPR proceedings where his firm secured victories for Champion. He has been identified as a "competitive decisionmaker" for Champion in other district court cases.
• Jacob M. Fritz (Of Counsel/Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group SC, Port Washington, WI
  • Experience Note: Works alongside Timothy J. Ziolkowski on Champion's patent litigation and IPR matters. He has also been identified as a "competitive decisionmaker" for Champion in other district court cases.

It's worth noting that Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (PKH) has also represented Champion Power Equipment in several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings related to their patents, securing significant victories. While not explicitly listed as counsel of record in the current Central District of California case, their expertise in Champion's patent portfolio is notable.