Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp v. Klein Tools, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp v. Klein Tools, Inc., centers on disputes over modular tool storage systems between two prominent American manufacturing companies.

The plaintiff, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., commonly known as Milwaukee Tool, is a multi-national company that designs, manufactures, and markets a wide array of power tools, hand tools, tool accessories, tool storage, and personal protective equipment. It operates as an independent subsidiary of the multinational holding company TTI Group. The defendant, Klein Tools, Inc., is a privately owned and family-managed American company known for manufacturing hand tools, particularly popular in the electrical and telecommunications industries. Milwaukee Tool alleges that Klein Tools' MODbox™ modular storage system infringes on its intellectual property related to modular toolbox technology. The accused products include various items within Klein's MODbox™ lineup, such as rolling toolboxes, medium and small toolboxes, component boxes, and coolers.

The case asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,952,167, titled "Utility assembly and coupling mechanism." This patent generally describes a coupling mechanism designed for detachably attaching two or more utility modules to one another, as well as utility assemblies, mobile carriers, and other attachable articles. Specifically, it covers container assemblies featuring female and male couplers that engage by sliding, facilitating the secure stacking and interlocking of modular components. Although this case specifically identifies US11952167, Milwaukee Tool initially asserted this patent alongside two related patents (US11365026B2 and US11794952B2) in litigation concerning similar modular storage technology.

The procedural posture places this case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, with Judge Andrea R. Wood assigned to the matter. The case is currently stayed pending the resolution of a related U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, identified as Dkt. No. 337-TA-1409. The Northern District of Illinois is recognized as a respected venue for patent litigation due to its established local patent rules and experienced judiciary. The ITC investigation is notable because, while it addresses infringement, it lacks the authority to invalidate patents, meaning any invalidity arguments will ultimately need to be resolved in the stayed district court action. This case is part of a broader "high-value battleground" in the modular jobsite storage category, where patent enforcement is escalating among major tool manufacturers. Klein Tools has also initiated Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against Milwaukee Tool's patents, including IPR2025-01018 against US11952167, IPR2024-01400 against US11365026B2, and IPR2024-01401 against US11794952B2, further highlighting the intensity of the intellectual property dispute in this market.

The patent infringement litigation between Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. and Klein Tools, Inc. (Case number: 1:24-cv-04928) in the Illinois Northern District Court has seen its proceedings largely shaped by a related investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The district court case is currently stayed.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-06-13: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. filed a patent infringement complaint against Klein Tools, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,952,167.
• 2024-06-13: On the same day, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., along with Keter Home and Garden Products Ltd., also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, initiating Investigation No. 337-TA-1409. This ITC complaint alleged violations based on the importation and sale of certain storage containers and toolboxes, asserting several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,952,167, 11,365,026, and 11,794,952.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Stay:

• 2024-08-14: The District Court Litigation (1:24-cv-04928) was stayed pending the resolution of the ITC investigative proceedings (337-TA-1409). This stay was granted based on an unopposed motion.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Related IPRs: Klein Tools, Inc. initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against patents involved in the ITC and district court cases. Specifically, IPR2024-01400 challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,365,026, and IPR2024-01401 challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,794,952. These IPR petitions were filed by Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation.
• 2025-06-09: The Acting Director of the USPTO intervened in IPR2024-01400 and IPR2024-01401 and denied institution of the IPRs. The Director found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's initial weighing of the Fintiv factors, particularly regarding the parallel ITC investigation, was "erroneous." The decision emphasized that a stay of the ITC proceeding was unlikely and that there was significant overlap between the issues in the IPRs and the ITC investigation.
• As of the available information, no specific IPR or PGR proceeding directly challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,952,167 was found in the search results, although it is one of the patents asserted in both the district court case and the ITC investigation.

ITC Investigation Milestones and Outcome:

• 2024-07-15: The ITC formally instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1409, titled "Certain Storage Containers and Toolboxes, Organizers, Component Boxes, Coolers, and Accessories Used Therewith."
• 2025-02: The trial in the ITC investigation concluded.
• 2025-06-20: An initial determination by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the ITC investigation was due.
• 2025-07-31: The revised target date for the Initial Determination in the ITC investigation.
• 2026-04-19: The target date for the final determination by the full Commission in the ITC investigation. Given that this date has passed, the ITC investigation should have reached a final determination, though the specific outcome (violation or no violation) is not detailed in the provided search results.

Current Posture:
The district court litigation remains stayed pending the resolution of the ITC investigative proceedings. The final outcome of the ITC investigation, which was targeted for April 19, 2026, will be a critical development for the resumption or final disposition of the district court case.

Based on available web search results, specific counsel of record for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. in case 1:24-cv-04928 are not explicitly identified through public docket information or legal news articles. While Foley & Lardner LLP is a firm with a significant intellectual property litigation practice and a large office in Milwaukee, which is the plaintiff's location, general web searches do not currently provide the names of individual attorneys who have entered an appearance in this particular district court case.

Without direct access to the court's PACER docket or more detailed case summaries that list attorney appearances, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record and their specific roles. Therefore, the requested information cannot be provided at this time.

Counsel of record representing defendant Klein Tools, Inc. in Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp v. Klein Tools, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04928 (N.D. Ill.), include attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. While direct counsel appearances in the district court were not available through web search, these attorneys are listed as counsel for Klein Tools, Inc. in a closely related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2024-01400, IPR2024-01401), which explicitly references the stayed district court case. It is common for counsel in related PTAB proceedings to also represent the party in the co-pending district court litigation.

The identified counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP are:

• James M. Glass

  • Role: Chair of Post-Grant Patent Practice (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: James Glass has been lead counsel in over 500 post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, representing both petitioners and patent owners, and is recognized as one of the top-performing and most active attorneys at the PTAB and Federal Circuit. His practice encompasses patent litigation in district courts, the ITC, and post-grant proceedings, with significant wins in defending and challenging patents across various technologies.

• Joseph Milowic III

  • Role: Of Counsel (also Director of Well-Being)
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joseph Milowic III has litigated, prosecuted, and opined on matters involving a wide range of technologies including nanotech, fiber optics, semiconductors, digital signal processing, medical devices, chemicals, biologics, pharmaceuticals (Hatch-Waxman cases), memory and storage, wireless technologies, software, and consumer products. He has been recognized as a New York Metro "Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property.

• Brianne M. Straka

  • Role: Co-Managing Partner, Chicago Office
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Brianne Straka's practice focuses on high-stakes complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, with a strong emphasis on high-tech patent litigation. She has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Her experience spans diverse technologies such as memory design, power control circuitry, cellular communications, and software.

• Niki Edmonds

  • Role: Not specified in available public profiles; noted as "pro hac vice forthcoming" in a related IPR proceeding.
  • Firm & Office Location: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (office location not specified in available search results).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Niki Edmonds at Quinn Emanuel could not be found through web search.