US 11118515B2

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing.

US 11,118,515 B2 — Verification Note

I searched for the exact identifier 11118515B2. Results returned the correct patent (not a similar number), and the live data matches the authoritative full text you supplied. One caution: search results also surface several different but related Holley/Shehan patents that are easy to conflate — US 11,225,916 B2, US 11,333,083 B2 (the continuation of this patent), and US 10,294,902 B2. Those are not 11118515B2.

Date caveat: your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the authoritative record I was given was fetched 2026-09-30. I have not reconciled that inconsistency; treat dates below as coming from the patent record itself.

Bibliographic Summary

Abstract (verbatim): "Present embodiments provide a throttle body which may be used with a variety of engines of different manufacturers. The throttle body may be used to replace mechanical or hydraulically controlled carburetors with electronic fuel injection. The throttle body may provide improved fuel pathways and fuel injector placement."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — throttle body assembly. A carburetor-replacement throttle body that bolts to an internal combustion engine (upper inlet / lower outlet) with at least one bore running through it. A fuel component cover sits on one side; the electronic control unit (ECU) sits on a second side roughly 90° from it. At least one fuel injector is at least partially inside the body and oriented parallel to the mounting base. A connecting fuel passage runs from a fuel inlet and includes a cross-channel passageway plus a vertical passageway housed at least partly in the fuel component cover; that vertical passageway puts the first injector in fluid communication with a second injector (the second injector being positionable in the same bore as the first). A throttle shaft passes through the body and the bore and is perpendicular to the horizontal axis running end-to-end through the fuel injector. Finally, the injector feeds fuel into a channel of a fuel distribution ring that has multiple apertures spraying fuel into the bore.

Claim 9 — throttle body assembly. The same architecture, expressed more explicitly: a fuel component cover on one side, and an ECU plus an ECU cover mounted over it on a second side ~90° away. At least one injector sits at least partly in the body, parallel to the mounting base, and the ECU is in electrical communication with it. The connecting fuel passage (cross-channel + vertical passageway, at least partly in the fuel component cover) feeds both the first injector and a second injector, and both supply the same bore. Again, the injector directs fuel into a fuel distribution ring having apertures discharging into the bore.

Dependent claims (scope narrowers):

• Claim 2: connecting fuel passage is on one side and closed, so fuel stays on that side (no front-to-rear crossover).
• Claim 3: the throttle body has four bores (four-barrel configuration).
• Claim 4: each bore has two vertically aligned fuel injectors.
• Claim 5: ECU in electrical communication with the injector.
• Claim 6: throttle body has a notch for injector wiring; the ECU cover + notch enclose the wire.
• Claim 7: strain reliefs along the lower edge of the ECU cover.
• Claim 8: at least one U-shaped strain relief notch holding a wire against the throttle body.
• Claim 10: ECU cover fully encloses a wire running from a side edge of the cover to the injector.
• Claim 11: strain reliefs along the ECU cover lower edge.
• Claim 12: U-shaped strain relief notch holding a wire against the body.

Note on claim language: Both independent claims use prospective/capability phrasing ("is capable of feeding the second fuel injector which is capable of being positioned…"). This is the wording shown in the granted text I was given; I did not verify the prosecution history to determine whether it reflects an amendment. Flagging it as a point to confirm from the file wrapper if claim construction matters.

Litigation Check

District court (found): Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn.) — the complaint asserts this patent (referred to as the '515 patent) along with the '083 patent (US 11,333,083 B2, the continuation). Per the complaint analysis, the accused products are the Aces Killshot Fusion EFI System and related EFI systems; claim 9 of the '515 patent is the asserted independent claim charted, and claim 1 of the '083 patent. Sources: https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/tned/1:26-cv-00059/doc/analysis/1 and https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-tennessee/court-tnedce/noscat-10/nos-830. The patent record itself also notes the E.D. Tenn. case via Unified Patents (case 1:26-cv-00059).

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit activity. Specifically, I did not locate any 2026 CAFC appeal, petition, or docket entry tied to US 11,118,515 B2. The only 2026 litigation I could identify for this patent is the E.D. Tenn. district court case above. I want to be explicit: my search is not an exhaustive CAFC docket sweep, so treat "no CAFC activity found" as a negative search result, not as a certified absence.

Uncertainty / things I could not confirm authoritatively:

• Whether a CAFC appeal from Holley v. Aces has been docketed (the district case appears to be at the complaint stage based on the source).
• Whether any IPR/PGR challenge to this patent exists.
• Any post-grant disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination affecting the claims.
• The 2025-01-02 assignment entry in the record is a Holley change of address; a 2021-11-19 security interest was granted to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (not an ownership transfer).

I'll research litigation involving US11118515B2. Let me run several targeted searches.

Initial searches didn't surface the case directly. The patent page itself referenced an E.D. Tenn. case. Let me dig into that and other litigation sources.

Let me search for the specific E.D. Tenn. case and related Holley enforcement activity.

Summary of findings

I searched litigation databases (Unified Patents portal, RPX Empower, Ex Parte/Docket Alarm‑style mirrors, CourtListener/RECAP references, and general web) for US Patent No. 11118515B2 specifically. I found one federal district court case associated with this patent. I did not find any CAFC appeal or PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding specifically identifying US11118515B2.

Case 1 — Holley Performance Products Inc v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.

Sources:

• RPX Empower docket: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection#overview
• Ex Parte case page: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/tned/1:26-cv-00059/holley-performance-products-inc-v-aces-fuel-injection-inc
• The Google Patents page for US11118515B2 itself lists this same matter under "Family has litigation" → E.D. Tenn. case, linking to: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Tennessee%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00059

Important caveats (please read)

1. Patent-level verification is indirect. Google Patents reports this litigation on the US11118515B2 record, and the case caption confirms Holley (the '515 owner) as plaintiff. However, I could not independently retrieve the complaint text to confirm that US11118515B2 is one of the asserted claims-in-suit; the complaint may also (or alternatively) plead related family members, such as the continuation US11333083B2 and/or other Holley throttle-body patents. Treat "US11118515B2 is asserted" as highly likely but not docket-verified.

2. Nature-of-suit discrepancy (reported literally, not corrected). The RPX record says "830 Patent," while the Ex Parte mirror lists the cause of action as "Copyright Infringement." I have not auto-corrected either; the inconsistency is likely a data-entry artifact, but I flag it because it affects what you can say about the asserted right(s) in that case.

3. No CAFC or PTAB activity found. I found no Federal Circuit appeal and no IPR/PGR petition specifically naming US11118515B2. Note: the patent is currently under a security interest to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (recorded Nov. 19, 2021) and a change-of-address assignment (Jan. 2, 2025) — these are assignment records, not litigation.

4. Do not conflate with adjacent numbers. My searches surfaced other Holley/Fuel-Injection Technology items with similar-looking identifiers — e.g., US11225916B2, US10570866B2, US10012197B2, US9376997B1, and design patents USD924273S1 / USD877201S1 — and an older, unrelated Specialty Auto Parts U.S.A., Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc., 1:17-cv-00147. None of these is US11118515B2, and I am excluding them per your instruction.

Bottom line

• Known litigation involving US11118515B2: Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059, E.D. Tenn., filed March 6, 2026, status open/pending, no outcome yet.
• No other lawsuits, CAFC appeals, or PTAB proceedings tied specifically to US11118515B2 were found in the sources available to me.
• If you need certainty on the asserted patent(s), the next step is to pull the PACER docket for 1:26-cv-00059 (Dkt. 1, the complaint) and check the asserted-patent list directly; I could not do that within this session.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before finalizing.

Both searches returned noise. Let me run more targeted checks, including the defendant's name and PTAB E2E/appeal angles.

One search surfaced a potentially relevant IPR. Let me pin down what patent IPR2026-00434 challenges, and do a final sweep for any proceeding naming the '515 patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 11,118,515 B2

Verification note. I sourced the proceedings list from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (the USPTO Open Data Portal canonical list), then ran four targeted web searches to catch anything ODP has not yet indexed — including a search for IPR/PGR petitions naming the '515 patent, a search for petitions by/against Holley in this technology, and a search by the defendant's name (Aces Fuel Injection). None surfaced an AIA trial naming US 11,118,515 B2 as the challenged patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings naming US 11,118,515 B2 as the challenged patent: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBM reviews; there is therefore no breakdown by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied, because there is nothing to break down. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is completely untested at the Board — all twelve claims are live, no claim has been canceled, no petitioner is estopped, and the entire § 102/§ 103 prior-art field against the '515 is open to you right now.

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template below is populated with an explicit null result rather than fictitious entries.

Per-proceeding detail

No proceedings on file

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: The canonical block states, verbatim in substance: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• Judge panel: N/A — no panel has ever been constituted against this patent.
• Petition grounds: N/A — no petition has been filed.
• Institution decision: N/A.
• Final Written Decision: N/A. No claim of US 11,118,515 B2 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated by the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A — there is no FWD to appeal. (Consistent with the litigation section above, I also found no CAFC activity tied to this patent.)
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-positive for a defendant — you would be the first mover at the Board, with no adverse precedential claim construction, no estoppel against you, and no need to distinguish your art from a prior record.

Near-miss items I examined and excluded (do not conflate)

These surfaced in search and are not proceedings on US 11,118,515 B2. I flag them so nobody errors in the other direction:

1. IPR2026-00434 — a blog aggregator (mirrored at sandbox.docketalarm.com and gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com) reports an IPR filed 2026-07-23 "styled Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.," with the caption "highlight[ing] the patent owner." That framing implies Aces is the patent owner in that proceeding — i.e., it is a challenge to an Aces patent, not to the '515. The aggregator post is also conspicuously thin (it does not name the challenged patent, the petitioner, the claims, or the grounds) and comes from a low-reliability mirror rather than PTAB E2E. Treat as unverified. It does not change the count above and I am not counting it as a proceeding against US 11,118,515 B2.
2. US 11,333,083 B2 (continuation of the '515) and US 10,294,902 B2 / US 9,843,740 B2 (MSD-family throttle-body patents) are different patents with different claim sets. An IPR against any of them would give the '515 no estoppel benefit and no claim-level outcome.
3. The US9376977B2 / US9376997B1-style identifiers that appear in the '515's own citation list are prior-art references, not IPRs.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the '515. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted, the claim-status ledger is trivially simple: claims 1–12 are all UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is CANCELED, nothing has been CONFIRMED in a Final Written Decision, and no claim has been narrowed by a Board construction. Independent claim 1 (four-bore-optional architecture, cross-channel + vertical fuel passage, fuel-distribution ring) and independent claim 9 (the ECU-cover variant, plus the "fully encloses" wire limitation in dependent claim 10) both stand exactly as they issued on 2021-09-14. Note the earlier section's flag that both independents use capability phrasing ("is capable of feeding the second fuel injector which is capable of being positioned…") — if you go to the Board, that is a § 112(b) / claim-construction question the Office has never ruled on, and the PTAB would be writing on a blank slate.

Estoppel landscape. There is no estoppel of any kind against anyone on this patent:

• § 315(e)(1)/(2) has never attached, because estoppel requires a final written decision and there has been none.
• That means no prior-art ground is foreclosed to a current defendant. Every patent and printed publication you want to assert — including art Holley cited during prosecution and art it did not — is available both at the Board and in the E.D. Tenn. case.
• The corollary is the flip side: you also do not get the benefit of someone else's work. There is no prior petitioner's expert report, no institution decision's reasoning, and no FWD findings to borrow or to leverage for a stay motion.

Pattern signals. There is no serial-petitioner pattern on this patent — zero petitions means no General Plastic / follow-on petition problems, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain; Google Patents' "Family has litigation" entry is just a link-out to the district case. The one live signal worth watching is a two-front dispute: per the litigation section, Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn.), filed 2026-03-06, asserts the '515 (claim 9) and the '083 (claim 1). If IPR2026-00434 is in fact Holley petitioning against an Aces-owned patent, that is the mirror image of the district-court fight — Holley as plaintiff on the '515/'083 and as petitioner elsewhere. I could not verify that within this session, and I am explicitly not treating it as confirmed.

Timing considerations that matter more than the (empty) proceedings list:

• The '515 issued 2021-09-14, so the § 321(c) nine-month PGR window closed in June 2022 and PGR is unavailable. IPR (§ 311) remains available — there is no absolute time bar on a first petitioner.
• § 315(b) is the clock that matters for Aces. Its one-year window runs from service of the complaint in 1:26-cv-00059 (filed 2026-03-06). If it was served on or near filing, that window closes around early March 2027. As of today (2026-09-30), no petition from Aces against the '515 appears on file.
• Discretionary-denial climate. Search results indicate the Office is applying a "settled expectations" factor skewed to patents in force six or more years (as of 2026-09-30 the '515 has been in force just over five years, since 2021-09-14, so it has not yet crossed that de facto line). They also show continued weight on Fintiv-style parallel-litigation factors and on petitioner stipulations — cf. Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLC, IPR2026-00204 et al. (PTAB June 15, 2026) (informative), where a broad litigation stipulation plus a vacated trial date defeated a discretionary-denial request. A defendant here should expect the parallel E.D. Tenn. case to be front and center in the institution calculus, and should consider a Fintiv-defeating stipulation early.

Recommended next steps

1. State the null plainly. There is no PTAB activity on US 11,118,515 B2 as of 2026-09-30. Do not cite an FWD, an institution decision, or a panel for this patent — none exists. Anyone who tells you "claims 1–5 have been canceled" is wrong: no claim of this patent has been canceled.
2. Confirm the null at the source before you rely on it. Two gaps I could not close this session: (a) I could not query PTAB E2E / the ODP endpoint directly, so I relied on the structured block plus web search; (b) I could not retrieve the docket for IPR2026-00434 to identify its challenged patent. Pull both. PTAB E2E search by patent number is at https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End); if IPR2026-00434 turns out to name the '515, that changes this report materially — but nothing in the current record supports that.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) date. Get the actual service date for Aces in 1:26-cv-00059 from PACER (Dkt. 1 and any waiver of service). A petition on the '515 must be filed within one year of service or the § 315(b) bar is absolute.
4. If you are defending, this is a first-mover position. With no prior petitioner, you choose the grounds, the expert, and the claim-construction theory, and you face no estoppel and no adverse Board record. Given the capability-phrasing in independent claims 1 and 9, weigh a § 112 indefiniteness theory carefully — but remember the Board's authority in IPR is limited to § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications (§ 311(b)); indefiniteness belongs in the district court or, historically, PGR (now time-barred here).
5. Re-check quarterly. The absence of PTAB activity is a meaningful negative finding for a patent that is actively asserted. Keep watching: (i) any IPR petition by Aces before roughly March 2027; (ii) whether that IPR (if filed) is met with a Fintiv-style discretionary-denial request from Holley; and (iii) the '515 crossing the six-year-in-force mark on 2027-09-14, which per current Office practice may begin to weigh in Holley's favor on discretionary denial.

Caveats. I did not fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions; where information was absent I said so. Two source-quality caveats carried over: the litigation section flagged a nature-of-suit discrepancy for 1:26-cv-00059 ("830 Patent" vs. "Copyright Infringement"), and a date inconsistency (a prompt date of 2026-04-26 vs. the patent record fetched 2026-09-30) that the earlier section explicitly declined to reconcile. All dates in this section use the 2026-09-30 reference date and YYYY-MM-DD format.

I'll research the assignment record. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and the current ownership situation.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame detail directly. I'll report what is verifiable and be explicit about the gaps rather than fabricate reel/frame numbers or correspondents.

Assignment Record Analysis — US 11,118,515 B2

Data-source caveat up front (important): I was not able to render the USPTO Assignment Center result page (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) for this patent within this session — the searches returned no Assignment Center content. The assignment events below are drawn from the Google Patents "Legal Events / Assignments" panel on the authoritative record you supplied (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11118515/en), which is a derivative of the same USPTO assignment dataset.

Consequence: I do not have reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names for any entry. I am not going to invent them. Where the task asked for reel/frame and correspondent, I mark "not retrieved" and note it as a verification gap. This matters most for Signal 3 (repeat correspondent), which cannot be scored without correspondents.

Inventors

Residences are confirmed on the face of the same-inventor sibling patent US 11,225,916 B2 (Shehan et al., "Electronic Fuel Injection Throttle Body Assembly," filed 2020-11-20 as a continuation of app. 16/208,231), which names the identical four inventors — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/bb/ba/6c4dcc010cb897/US11225916.pdf. The same four inventors also appear on design patents in the same family (e.g., USD924,273 S, filed 2017-12-04), reinforcing that this is a core in-house Holley engineering/design team rather than an acquired-in portfolio.

Unusual patterns: None observed. All four are Holley-area residents (Bowling Green / south-central KY and adjacent southern Indiana), all four appear together across multiple Holley filings (utility and design) spanning 2016–2021, and each executed an inventor-to-employer assignment to Holley recorded 2018-12-04. I found no evidence — and no reporting — indicating any of the four departed Holley within 12 months of filing. I cannot positively confirm continued employment; treat "no departures found" as a negative search result, not a certified fact.

Original assignee

Holley Performance Products, Inc., Bowling Green, KY — named as both applicant/assignee on the face of the patent and as "Original Assignee" in the record.

• Primary line of business: Operating manufacturer/marketer of automotive aftermarket performance products — carburetors, EFI systems and tuners, ignition (MSD), exhaust (Flowmaster), etc. Its own investor materials describe it as "the market leader with an iconic reputation in EFI/tuners, carburetors, exhaust and ignition," naming Sniper 2 EFI as a flagship product — https://investor.holley.com/static-files/8103cdeb-8d1e-4dd9-88e2-29cbcc562bf0 and https://s28.q4cdn.com/716675898/files/doc_presentation/2023/05/Investor-Presentation-May-2023.pdf.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, strongly supported. A NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall (No. 24E-076, submitted 2024-09-05) identifies "HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 1801 Russellville Rd, Bowling Green KY 42101" as manufacturer of the "Sniper 2 EFI Throttle Body" (Part Nos. R90062AAP-B polished / R90062AAH-B black) — a four-barrel electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly in commercial distribution through aftermarket kits — https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24E076-6587.PDF. This is a commercially shipped product in the same throttle-body-EFI product category as the claimed subject matter.
• Current status: Operating and public. Holley is a publicly traded company ("Holley Performance Brands," NASDAQ: HLLY) with active investor reporting. Record owner remains the operating subsidiary Holley Performance Products, Inc. I found no bankruptcy, dissolution, or insolvency event. (I did not locate a specific 10-K/8-K passage confirming that this patent is pledged — see the securitization note below.)

Structural note: Ownership sits at the subsidiary level (Holley Performance Products, Inc.), not at the publicly traded parent (Holley Inc.). This is ordinary corporate structuring within an operating group, not an NPE indicator.

Assignment timeline

Three recorded events touch this patent. No post-issuance ownership transfer has ever been recorded. Execute dates are shown only where the record supplies them; otherwise the date shown is the recorded event date per the Google Patents legal-events panel.

• 2018-12-03 / recorded 2018-12-03 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: not an assignment — "Application filed by Holley Performance Products Inc" (filing event; included for completeness because it appears in the legal-events panel)
  • Assignor: n/a
  • Assignee: n/a
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: initial filing of app. 16/208,246, claiming priority to provisional US 62/594,527 (filed 2017-12-04).

• executed date not stated / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: GIESKE, AMY; LAYMAN, ADAM; SAMS, JONATHAN; SHEHAN, LAURA (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — this is the entry where I most wanted the correspondent (inventor-to-employer assignments are typically filed by the assignee's regular patent counsel); I could not obtain it.
  • Context: ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment — the four named inventors conveying their rights to the company that both employed them and filed the application. This is the only ownership-transferring record in the entire chain.

• executed date not stated / recorded 2021-11-19 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (a lien, not an ownership transfer)
  • Assignor: ACCEL PERFORMANCE GROUP LLC; B&M RACING & PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.; DRAKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.; MSD LLC; POWERTEQ LLC
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (as collateral agent)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: group-wide securitization / credit-facility collateralization. The multi-debtor assignor list (Holley plus five branded subsidiaries) is the signature of a single secured credit agreement encumbering the group's IP, not a patent sale. Recorded ~2 months after the patent issued (2021-09-14) and ~4 months after Holley's July 2021 public listing via SPAC — consistent with a post-IPO credit agreement. Holley's own investor deck references an "amended credit agreement and interest rate collar" — https://s28.q4cdn.com/716675898/files/doc_presentation/2023/05/Investor-Presentation-May-2023.pdf. Wells Fargo is a lienholder, not an owner.

• executed date not stated / recorded 2025-01-02 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Address (Receiving Party Data Change of Address)
  • Assignor: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.
  • Assignee: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. (same entity — administrative record correction only)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: administrative record maintenance, not a transfer. No change in beneficial ownership.

Bottom line of this section: The Assignment Center record, as reflected in the legal-events panel, contains no transfer of this patent away from Holley Performance Products, Inc. Ownership has been continuous from the 2018-12-04 inventor assignment through today. The only two non-filing events are a bank lien and an address change.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11118515B2
    2018 : Inventors assign rights to Holley
         : Application 16/208/246 filed
    2021 : Patent issued Sep 14
         : Wells Fargo records security interest
    2025 : Holley records change of address
    2026 : Holley sues Aces Fuel Injection

Note on parsing: "16/208/246" contains slashes, which the task flagged as parser-risky — I have kept it in the diagram but if you need a strictly clean render, substitute "App 16-208-246 filed".

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. There is no transfer to a licensing-only entity anywhere in the record. Every recorded assignee is either (a) the operating manufacturer Holley Performance Products, Inc., or (b) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in a security-interest capacity only (recorded 2021-11-19). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity appears. No ownership-affecting record exists after 2018-12-04.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. The complete assignee set is {Holley Performance Products, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.}. Neither matches the named NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Holley is a product company; Wells Fargo is a bank acting as collateral agent. Neither is an asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / INSUFFICIENT DATA. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the three assignment entries, so this signal cannot be scored. I will not infer it. To close this gap: pull the three records (2018-12-04 assignment; 2021-11-19 security interest; 2025-01-02 change of address) from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 11118515 and read the correspondent field on each. My prior expectation — stated as a hypothesis, not a finding — is that all three will show Holley's regular outside IP counsel or in-house paralegal, because the same company appears on both sides of the 2025 change-of-address record.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Three recorded events over roughly six years, and only one of them transfers ownership. There is no chain of LLC-to-LLC hops, no sub-24-month cascade, and no shared-address clustering (the 2021 security interest is a lien, not a conveyance). The multi-debtor structure is a credit facility, not a transfer chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The suit Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn., filed 2026-03-06 per the earlier-generated litigation section), was filed by Holley asserting a patent Holley has owned continuously since before issuance. No assignment occurred within six months before filing. The nearest prior record is the 2025-01-02 change of address, which does not alter ownership and is roughly 14 months before suit. There is no venue-engineering or "clean standing" transfer in evidence — standing rests on the chain of title that already existed.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 filing, no 363 sale, no trustee conveyance appears anywhere in the record or in Holley's public posture. Holley is an operating, publicly traded company actively enforcing its own patents.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. This is the inverse: the operating company is asserting directly and in its own name against a competing aftermarket EFI supplier. The complaint analysis confirms the accused products (Aces "Killshot Fusion" EFI system) are described as "designed to compete with Plaintiff's own EFI products in the automotive aftermarket," and the asserted claims are '515 claim 9 and '083 claim 1 — https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/tned/1:26-cv-00059/doc/analysis/1. Direct competitor-versus-competitor assertion, no NPE intermediary.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating manufacturer, which is actively litigating.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Holley Performance Products, Inc. has owned US 11,118,515 B2 continuously and by recorded assignment since 2018-12-04, when the four named inventors conveyed their rights to their employer; the only subsequent records are a group-wide Wells Fargo security interest recorded 2021-11-19 (a lien listing Holley and five branded subsidiaries, not a conveyance) and a Holley change-of-address record on 2025-01-02 (administrative only). Holley is a publicly traded, actively operating aftermarket manufacturer that ships the Sniper 2 EFI Throttle Body (per NHTSA recall 24E-076) — a product in the same category as the claims — and is asserting the patent directly against a competitor, Aces Fuel Injection, in E.D. Tenn. No shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, no cascading LLC chain, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus appears anywhere in the assignment record.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 11118515): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent record with legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11118515/en

Open gaps I could not close in this session (stated plainly, not papered over):

1. Reel/frame numbers for all three recorded events — not retrieved.
2. Correspondent of record for all three recorded events — not retrieved; this blocks a definitive score on Signal 3.
3. Execution dates distinct from recording dates — the legal-events panel supplies only one date per entry; the true execution dates (particularly for the inventor assignment and the security agreement) require the underlying assignment documents.
4. Confirmation of Continued employment of the four inventors at Holley — no departure evidence found, but not affirmatively verified.
5. No IPR/PGR, CAFC, disclaimer, or reexamination activity was found for this patent, consistent with the earlier-generated litigation section; treat that as a negative search result.

I'll verify the patent and its cited prior art against live sources before building the analysis.

Good grounding so far. Let me verify the remaining high-relevance citations.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,118,515 B2

"Electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly" · App. 16/208,246 · Filed 2018‑12‑03 · Priority (provisional 62/594,527) 2017‑12‑04 · Granted 2021‑09‑14 · Assignee: Holley Performance Products, Inc.

Builds on the previously generated bibliographic and litigation sections; those are not repeated. Two source-integrity notes carried forward: (i) the earlier section flagged a date inconsistency (prompt date vs. record-fetch date) — unresolved and irrelevant to the art analysis below; (ii) one search result mislabeled this patent's number with the title of a different patent ("Throttle body fuel injection system with improved fuel distribution and idle air control" — that is US 9,845,740 B2's title, not the '515's). I am reporting that literally rather than auto-correcting it, as instructed.

1. Patent-number verification (literal ID: 11118515B2)

Results returned for 11118515B2 match the authoritative text supplied: US 11,118,515 B2, application 16/208,246, filed 2018‑12‑03, granted 2021‑09‑14, Holley Performance Products, Inc., inventors Shehan / Gieske / Sams / Layman. Adjacent numbers that surface in the same searches — US 11,225,916 B2, US 11,333,083 B2, US 10,294,902 B2, US 10,012,197 B2, US 9,376,997 B1 — are different patents and are treated as such below. Verified source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11118515/en

2. Legal framework applied

Two cautions stated up front, per your rules: (1) I reached my tool-step limit before retrieving full text for several references; descriptions below for those are drawn from the patent's own citation listing plus titles/dates and general knowledge, and are marked accordingly. (2) "Potentially anticipates" is used in the strict § 102 sense (all elements in a single reference) — where a reference teaches only a sub‑feature, I say so and point to § 103 instead.

3. Independent-claim element breakdown (reference key)

4. Tier 1 — Most relevant prior art (full citation, dates, description, § 102 target)

4.1 US 9,376,997 B1 — EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors ⭐ closest art

• Assignee / inventors: Fuel Injection Technology Inc.; Kenneth William Farrell, Jeremy Lynn Schmidt
• Filed: 2016‑01‑13 · Granted: 2016‑06‑28 · Family: US 9,482,198 B1 (2016‑11‑01), US 10,100,798 B2 (filed 2016‑10‑27), US 10,961,968 B2, US 11,391,255 B2, US 2017/0198672 A1 (pub. 2017‑07‑13)
• Examiner-cited: yes (asterisked in the '515 citation list)
• Disclosure (verified full text): core body; four vertically extending air‑intake passages (bores) through the core body between top/bottom surfaces; a first fuel‑delivery component on a first side and a second on a second side; at least two injectors between the core body and each side component; the side component's fuel passage axis interconnects with the other via a transfer passage defined within the core body; a sleeve in the intake passage with a plurality of orifices through its wall, a passage defined at least partly by the sleeve, the injector injecting into that passage; valve‑shaft axis normal to the fuel‑rail passage direction; an ECU box on a second side, the two sides not parallel; compact envelope (height < 4 in, length < 8 in, width 8–10 in).
• Potential § 102 target claims: 1, 3, 5, 9. Mapping: A ✓, B ✓ (four bores → claim 3), C ✓/partial (side component + ECU on a non‑parallel side ≈ 90°), D ✓, F ✓ (shaft ⊥ fuel passage axis), G ✓ (the apertured sleeve = a fuel distribution ring). The live question is E: F.I.T. shows two injectors per side component but they serve different bores, not two injectors feeding the same bore. That is exactly the gap the '515's "capable of feeding the second fuel injector … relative to the same said at least one bore" language plugs. → Full anticipation of claim 1/9 is arguable but not clean; claim 3 (four bores) and claim 5 are the most exposed.
• Note: This reference, together with the claim language in the granted text, is the single best explanation for the prospective "is capable of…" phrasing flagged in the earlier section.

4.2 US 9,845,740 B2 — Throttle body fuel injection system with improved fuel distribution and idle air control

• Assignee / inventor: MSD LLC; Wittkopf et al. · Priority: 2012‑05‑11 · Granted: 2017‑12‑19
• Examiner-cited: yes · Pre‑critical‑date publication: US 2013/0298871 A1 (pub. 2013‑11‑14) — cite this for § 102(a)(1); family also includes US 9,303,578 B2 (2016‑04‑05) and US 10,094,353 B2 (2018‑10‑09)
• Disclosure (verified claim text of US 10,094,353 B2): four‑barrel carburetor replacement, throttle body with bores each having a throttle plate and an associated injector; a ring disposed in the bore with upper/lower ends and a circular wall, a plurality of openings in the lower end in fluid communication with the injector; outer housing + ring‑shaped insert with axial grooves and a circumferential groove feeding the openings; conduit coupling outlets to injector; IAC bypass circuit.
• Potential § 102 target claims: 1 and 9 in respect of element G (fuel distribution ring with apertures) and elements A/B/F; also claim 5 (ECU). Does not disclose the ~90° cover/ECU relationship (C) or the cover‑resident cross‑channel + vertical passage feeding two injectors in one bore (E). → Best framed as a § 103 combination source for G, with § 102 exposure limited to the ring feature.
• Date nuance: the patent issued 2017‑12‑19, 15 days after the '515 priority date; only the 2013 application publication is squarely § 102(a)(1) art.

4.3 US 2009/0145406 A1 — Fuel injection body sized to replace carburetor body

• Inventor: Kenneth William Farrell (with Duff) · Filed: 2007‑10‑12 · Published: 2009‑06‑11 · Examiner-cited: yes
• Disclosure (verified): fuel‑injection body sized to replace a 4150 double‑pumper carburetor; main throttle body with four passages; first and second end caps secured to first/second side surfaces and generally covering four side‑mounted fuel injectors extending toward the air passages; fuel rails; auxiliary injector plate; FIG. 14–15 show a small computer mounted to the throttle body.
• Potential § 102 target claims: 1, 3, 5, 9 (end caps ≈ fuel component covers on opposed sides; injectors at least partly in the body and concealed; controller on the body). Directly relevant to H (concealment/covering of injectors and wiring → claims 6–8, 10). Does not clearly show C's ~90° relationship or E's cross‑channel + vertical passage within the cover.

4.4 US 2011/0120413 A1 — Throttle body fuel distribution assembly

• Assignee / inventors: Competition Cams, Inc.; Corey Runia, Brian Reese · Filed: 2009‑11‑23 · Published: 2011‑05‑26 (abandoned) · Examiner-cited: yes
• Disclosure (verified): throttle body with throttle bore and throttle valve; injector in an injector port; fuel rail; and a fuel dissemination device (a distribution pin) press‑fit into a channel to deflect/disperse the injector spray into the airflow, in a direction transverse/opposite the airflow.
• Potential § 102 target claims: None cleanly. The disclosure teaches spray dispersal, not a ring with a plurality of apertures (element G). It is a § 103 candidate for the general "improved fuel distribution into the bore" motivation, and it marks the state of the art for TBI fuel‑distribution.

4.5 US 2015/0108256 A1 (pub. 2015‑04‑23) / US 10,012,197 B2 (granted 2018‑07‑03) — Fuel Injection Throttle Body

• Assignee: Holley Performance Products, Inc.; filed 2013‑10‑18
• Examiner-cited: no (third‑party/IDS cited)
• Why it matters: the '515 specification's own abstract language ("improved fuel pathways through and about the throttle body in order to move fuel to opposed side"; "computer mounted on the throttle body and a notch formed in the throttle body to define a wire routing pathway from the computer to the injectors") tracks this Holley family. Because US 2015/0108256 A1 published more than one year before 2017‑12‑04 and names different inventors, the § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership exception does not reach it — it is potentially § 102(a)(1) art notwithstanding common ownership.
• Potential § 102 target claims: 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 (fuel pathways to the opposed side; notched wire‑routing pathway from controller to injectors).
• Confidence caveat: I did not retrieve the full '256 text in this session; treat this as a flag for verification, not a concluded anticipation. Cross-check whether the '256 discloses the cross‑channel + vertical passage geometry.

5. Tier 2 — Secondary prior art (ECU integration, wiring enclosure, retrofit architecture)

6. Tier 3 — Background / non‑anticipatory art (reported, not analyzed in depth)

• Colt Industries / Coltec carburetor cluster (1976–1990): US 4,325,339; 4,230,645; 4,306,441; 4,318,214; 4,224,908; 4,246,875; 4,294,282; 4,357,283; 4,434,762; 4,434,763; 4,556,032; 4,949,983. These are mechanical carburetor / induction‑passage patents and a rod‑seal patent. They predate EFI throttle bodies by decades, disclose no ECU, injectors, wiring pathways, or apertured distribution rings, and are cited as general background. No § 102 exposure for claims 1–12. (US 4,556,032 — Adapter means for creating an open loop manually adjustable apparatus… — is the only one touching retrofit fuel control, and still not anticipatory.)
• Ornamental design patents (US D447,147; D508,496; D543,555; D555,668; D578,550; D645,058; D648,746; D659,714; D655,311; D721,389; D760,804; D826,280 and AU 339157 / 341133 / 348732‑348734 / 356762 / 201710470‑201710471 / 201813353‑201813355 / 201815034‑201815036 / 201816623‑201816624): ornamental claims. Their drawings could theoretically be relied on for what they disclose, but none is cited as a § 102 reference and none is analyzed here as anticipatory.
• "Cited By" entries (US 12,421,907 B2; US 12,429,021 B2; US D968,468; US D989,127; US D995,563; AU 2018378313 B2): these cite the '515 or its family — they are later documents, i.e., not prior art to the '515.
• Same‑family / co‑pending documents (US 2019/0170070 A1; US 2019/0170069 A1; US 11,333,083 B2; WO 2019/112963 A1; AU 2018378315 B2): same priority date, not prior art.
• Non‑patent literature (31 items) — e.g., F.A.S.T. EZ‑EFI Self‑Tuning Fuel Injection Systems 30294‑KIT TBI Conversion Kit (2015‑06‑30); Holley 2017 New & Hot Products Catalogue — Carburetors (2016‑11‑01); Howell EFI Fuel Injection Conversion Kit JP258 (2015‑04‑29); Mopar Performance P5249686 Jeep MPI‑Fuel (2016‑09‑02); ISR/WO for PCT/US2018/063660 and PCT/US2018/063668 (2019‑03‑20). These are "printed publication"/public‑use candidates under § 102(a)(1) for the same general carburetor‑replacement concepts and should be checked for the two‑injectors‑per‑bore and apertured‑ring features. I did not retrieve their contents in this session.

7. Element‑by‑element anticipation matrix (strongest single reference per element)

Reading of the matrix: every sub‑feature of claims 1 and 9 appears in at least one pre‑2017‑12‑04 reference, and several in a single reference (US 9,376,997 B1 covers A, B, C, D, F and G). The features that no single reference appears to disclose in combination are E (cross‑channel + vertical passage in the fuel‑component cover feeding two injectors into the same bore) and, secondarily, the strict ≈90° cover/ECU placement of C.

8. References that are not prior art (explicitly excluded)

• US 11,333,083 B2 / US 2019/0170070 A1 — continuation of the '515, same priority date, same inventors/assignee.
• US 2019/0170069 A1 — pre‑grant publication of the '515 itself.
• WO 2019/112963 A1; AU 2018378315 B2; AU 2018378313 B2 — same family.
• US 10,294,902 B2 / US 2018/0119656 A1 (Holley, priority 2016‑10‑28) — § 102(a)(2) art excepted by § 102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership). Its application publication (2018‑05‑03) post‑dates the critical date, so no (a)(1) pathway.
• US 12,421,907 B2; US 12,429,021 B2; US D968,468; US D989,127; US D995,563 — cite the '515; later documents.
• US 9,845,740 B2 the patent document itself — issued 2017‑12‑19, after the critical date; use its 2013 application publication instead.

9. Bottom line

1. Most relevant prior art: US 9,376,997 B1 (Fuel Injection Technology / Farrell & Schmidt) is the primary reference — it independently discloses four bores, side‑mounted injectors, a fuel‑delivery component on one side with an ECU box on a non‑parallel side, a shaft axis perpendicular to the fuel‑passage direction, and an apertured sleeve functioning as a fuel‑distribution ring.
2. Second most relevant: US 9,845,740 B2 / US 10,094,353 B2 / US 2013/0298871 A1 (MSD / Wittkopf) for the fuel‑distribution ring with a plurality of apertures, and US 2009/0145406 A1 (Farrell) for the side injectors concealed by end caps with a computer mounted to the body.
3. Most‑exposed claims: 1, 3, 5 and 9 — claim 3 (four bores) is the most plainly anticipated; claims 1/9 turn on element E, where no reference found discloses a vertical passageway feeding a second injector into the same bore.
4. The claim feature that most likely carried allowance is precisely the "capable of feeding the second fuel injector which is capable of being positioned … relative to the same said at least one bore" language in independent claims 1 and 9 — consistent with the prosecution‑history flag raised in the earlier section.
5. Watch item (for verification, not a conclusion): US 2015/0108256 A1 (Holley, published 2015‑04‑23) is a commonly‑owned but possibly still § 102(a)(1) reference because § 102(b)(2)(C) excepts only (a)(2) art and the publication is more than one year pre‑critical‑date with different inventors. I did not retrieve its full text; confirm whether it discloses the E geometry before relying on it.

Verification limits for this session: full‑text verified for US 9,376,997 B1, US 2013/0298871 A1 family claim text (via US 10,094,353 B2), US 2009/0145406 A1, and US 2011/0120413 A1. Titles/dates for the remaining 74 citations are taken from the '515's own citation listing on the authoritative record; I did not independently open every reference, and my tool-step limit was reached before completing the sweep. Treat Tier 2/3 descriptions as citation‑list‑derived.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11118515/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US9376997 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20250003378 (US 9,376,997 disclosure) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110120413 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090145406 · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/be/ff/86/fce1fbc39f4345/US10094353.pdf (MSD ring claims) · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/87/54/f576303159da4f/US9376997.pdf

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references cited on the patent page, verifying key references with live searches.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,118,515 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the bibliographic and litigation sections already generated, this section analyzes validity under § 103 using the prior art cited on the face of the patent (the "Citations (56)" / "Patent Citations (74)" lists on the Google Patents record). I do not re-summarize the claims or the litigation; I cross-reference them.

1. Legal framework and scope

Governing law. Because the '515 patent's effective filing date is 2017-12-04 (provisional US 62/594,527), it is an AIA (first-inventor-to-file) patent. Obviousness is judged under § 103 with the AIA's expanded prior-art definitions (§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)), applying the Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The touchstone is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the effective filing date, considering (a) the scope/content of the prior art, (b) differences between the prior art and the claims, (c) the level of ordinary skill, and (d) objective indicia. Under KSR, a combination may be obvious where the elements are known, the field is one of common endeavor, and the combination yields no more than predictable results; "obvious to try" and "design choice" reasoning are available where the prior art supplies a finite number of identified, predictable solutions or a design incentive.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). Based on the field and the patent's own disclosure, a POSITA here would be a mechanical/automotive engineer with roughly a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–5 years of experience designing fuel-induction systems for internal-combustion engines, including familiarity with retrofit electronic throttle-body injection (TBI) units sized to replace carburetors (e.g., for the common Holley 4150/4160 four-barrel flange).

Claim-construction note carried forward. As flagged in the earlier section, both independent claims use prospective/capability phrasing — "capable of feeding the second fuel injector which is capable of being positioned at least partially within said throttle body" (claim 1) and "is capable of feeding the second fuel injector which is capable of being positioned at least partially within said throttle body" (claim 9). This broadens the claims: a fuel passage that can feed an optional second injector reads on the claim even if no second injector is installed. That broadening materially eases any § 103 case, because the reference need not actually include the second installed injector.

Family/common-ownership caveat (important). Several items on the citation list are Holley's own:

• US 10,294,902 B2 / US 2018/0119656 A1 (Holley; priority 2016-10-28)
• US 2019/0170070 A1 (Holley; same 2017-12-04 priority)

The '902 patent and the '656 publication published after the '515 critical date (2019-05-21 and 2018-05-03 respectively) and are therefore not § 102(a)(1) art. They would only be § 102(a)(2) art, and as commonly owned subject matter under § 102(b)(2)(C) they are likely disqualified as prior art against the '515 patent. US 2019/0170070 is the same family and is not prior art at all. I therefore do not rely on Holley's own disclosures in the combinations below; the Office may cite them under a different theory, but that theory is vulnerable. (Contrast the third-party references, which are the workhorses of the analysis.)

2. The three references that do most of the work

2.1 Farrell, US 9,376,997 B1 ("the '997 patent") — EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors, Fuel Injection Technology Inc., granted 2016-06-28

URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9376997/en

This is the examiner-cited ("*") reference and is astonishingly close to claim 1. Verified disclosures:

The '997 patent therefore discloses, in one reference, the architecture of claim 1: side-mounted fuel-component covers, a side fuel injector feeding a sleeve/ring that sprays into the bore through orifices, and an ECU box on a non-parallel (≈90°) side of a four-bore body. Note also its express statement that "At least two fuel injectors are mounted between the core body and the first fuel delivery component" — i.e., multiple injectors served by one side-component passage.

2.2 Wittkopf et al., US 9,845,740 B2 ("the '740 patent") — Throttle body fuel injection system with improved fuel distribution and idle air control, MSD LLC, granted 2017-12-19

URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9845740B2](/patent/US9845740B2)/en

This is the reference that supplies the fuel-distribution-ring element in its most explicit form, and it is likewise in the '515 citation list. Verified disclosures (also found in the sibling US 10,094,353 B2 and pre-grant US 2013/0298871 A1, both cited):

• "a throttle body assembly with four main bores, each with a throttle plate and an associated fuel injector";
• "Each injector feeds fuel into a circular fuel distribution ring via a fuel injection conduit… Fuel is injected through downward-facing outlets at or near the bottom end of the rings";
• the rings are two-piece, with "axial grooves… joined by a circumferential groove… in fluid communication with a conduit that supplies fuel from a fuel injector";
• "an engine control unit (ECU) 132 that is integrated into the side of throttle body 102 opposite the throttle linkage" — i.e., ECU on one side, throttle linkage on the other;
• "left and right fuel rails" feeding the injectors.

The '740 patent's disclosure maps almost one-to-one onto the ring/aperture limitation of claims 1 and 9 and the four-bore limitation of claim 3.

2.3 Nikki, US 2008/0276908 A1 ("the Nikki publication") — Throttle apparatus having electronic control means built-in, filed 2007-05-09

URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080276908A1/en

Also examiner-cited ("*"). This is the cleanest teaching of the ECU-on-the-throttle-body packaging concept: the apparatus is "provided with an electronic control unit (ECU) 100 serving as the electronic control means within a throttle body 10," with the ECU chamber occupying "the same volume as float chamber 22 in a lower portion of the throttle apparatus" so that no new engine-bay space is required. It expressly targets the same retrofit problem ("constructing a fuel injection system… by using an engine fuel supply system having a carburetor specification").

3. Element-by-element obviousness chart — claim 1

Primary combination: '997 (Farrell) in view of '740 (MSD), optionally further in view of Nikki.

Result: every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by '997 alone, with '740 supplying an alternative/confirmatory disclosure of the fuel-distribution ring and the four-bore/ECU-on-side architecture. Claim 1 is, in my assessment, highly vulnerable to a § 103 rejection over '997 alone (or '997 + '740).

4. Claim 9 (the second independent claim)

Claim 9 adds: (i) an ECU cover mounted over the ECU, and (ii) that the connecting-passage vertical passageway feeds both injectors, both providing fuel to the same bore.

• (i) '997 expressly discloses that "the ECU box comprises a first portion and a second portion… the first portion is integrally formed with the electronic fuel injection throttle body and the second portion defines a removable lid" — a cover over the ECU. Nikki likewise discloses an ECU chamber with a lid/connector arrangement. Disclosed.
• (ii) '997 discloses one side-component fuel passage serving "at least two fuel injectors"; '740 discloses a fuel rail/conduit feeding an injector and a ring. The "both feed the same bore" limitation is met by routine configuration — and, given the capability language, by the mere capability of the passage to feed two injectors associated with one bore.

Result: claim 9 is at least as vulnerable as claim 1, since it merely recites a cover (disclosed in '997 and Nikki) and makes the two-injector-per-bore relationship explicit.

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR / MPEP 2143 analysis)

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine '997, '740, and Nikki for several independent, mutually reinforcing reasons — each of which maps to a recognized KSR rational:

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. All three address retrofit TBI units designed to bolt in place of a four-barrel carburetor and to improve fuel atomization/distribution. '997 ("improved sizing and fuel supply attributes"), '740 ("optimal fuel distribution and idle control circuitry"), and Nikki ("constructing a fuel injection system… using an engine fuel supply system having a carburetor specification") are directed to the identical problem. MPEP 2143 recognizes common-field, common-problem combinations as well-motivated.

2. Same physical envelope → structural interchangeability. The '740 patent states the throttle body "is designed to bolt on to any square-bore, four-barrel intake, including the common 4150 and 4160 designs." The '997 unit similarly emulates the carburetor envelope (its stated frame of reference is matching the carburetor's width/length). Components from one design are therefore physically and functionally adaptable to the other — a textbook "simple substitution of one known element for another" to obtain predictable results.

3. The patent's own stated design pressures supply the incentive. The '515 specification itself recites the motivations that make the combination obvious: "consideration of space relative to the engine hood and space relative to surrounding engine components," "minimal height," "multiple known bolt patterns," and modular subassemblies. Under KSR, "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Here, moving the ECU onto the body (Nikki), side-mounting injectors behind a fuel component cover ('997), and distributing fuel through a ring ('740) are all established functions combined to satisfy a known packaging constraint.

4. The fuel-distribution-ring approach solves a problem the other references acknowledge. '740 explains that systems without ring distribution suffer "uneven distribution of fuel into the intake stream," producing "uneven and unpredictable" air-fuel ratios. A POSITA seeking to improve the '997 side-injector design would have had a reason to adopt '740's ring — an identified, predictable solution to a recognized deficiency.

5. No teaching away. Nothing in '997, '740, or Nikki criticizes or discourages combining side fuel-component covers with ring distribution or with an on-body ECU. Absence of a teaching away, combined with predictable results, favors obviousness.

6. Dependent claims

7. Where the obviousness case is weakest (honest flags)

Two limitations are materially harder to dispose of on this record, and I want to be explicit rather than paper over them:

1. Claim 4 — "two vertically aligned fuel injectors" per bore. The cited art shows (a) multiple injectors per side component ('997), and (b) one injector per bore feeding a distribution ring ('740, '997 sleeve). I did not find, within the '515 citation list, a reference that expressly shows two stacked injectors feeding a single throttle-body bore. The obviousness argument here must rest on (i) the '515 specification's own admission that more injectors are used "when larger engines are utilized and higher horsepower is required," and that extra cast ports "could be closed with a plug" for later use; and (ii) KSR "predictable variation"/"obvious to try" reasoning. That is a reasonable but not airtight position; a court or the PTAB could find it insufficient without a secondary reference (e.g., a dual/staged-injector throttle body). This is the strongest non-obviousness argument available to the patentee.

2. Claims 7–8, 11–12 — strain reliefs and U-shaped notches. These are thin, drawing-level mechanical details. They are almost certainly obvious as routine design choices for routing wires out of an engine-mounted electronic enclosure subject to vibration, but the cited list does not contain a reference that squarely discloses a "U-shaped strain-relief notch… holding the wire against the throttle body." A rejection would likely rely on "obvious mechanical expedient" / official notice, which a patentee can challenge.

Notably, these two weak spots are the narrowest claims in the patent; the independent claims (1 and 9), which carry the commercial weight (they are what the earlier section notes is charted in the pending E.D. Tenn. action against Aces), are the most exposed.

8. Secondary considerations / objective indicia

I found no objective-indicia evidence on this record: no evidence of unexpected results, no established commercial-success/nexus showing, no licensing program tied to the claimed features, and no long-felt-but-unmet-need evidence. The pending litigation (Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn.), discussed in the earlier section) could, in principle, generate copying or commercial-success evidence, but none is established, and I cannot verify it within this session. Absent such evidence, the secondary considerations do not presently offset the strong § 103 showing against claims 1 and 9.

I also note the prior-art-date field on the record is 2017-12-04; all references relied on above (Farrell '997 granted 2016-06-28; MSD '740 granted 2017-12-19 with a 2012 priority and a pre-grant publication; Nikki published 2008-11-13) predate or are properly prior art as of the effective filing date, subject to the common-ownership caveat for Holley's own documents.

9. Bottom line

• Claims 1 and 9 are, in my assessment, highly likely to be obvious over US 9,376,997 B1 (Farrell) alone, and certainly over '997 in view of US 9,845,740 B2 (MSD) and/or US 2008/0276908 A1 (Nikki). '997 discloses the side-mounted fuel-component cover, the shrouded side injector, the perpendicular throttle shaft, the ECU box on a non-parallel (~90°) side, and a sleeve-with-orifices discharging into the bore; '740 supplies the express "circular fuel distribution ring" and the four-bore/ECU-on-side architecture; Nikki supplies the express on-body ECU packaging rationale.
• Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 are likely obvious using the same combination plus the Visteon/Siemens/MTU interconnect-and-potting references.
• Claims 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 are arguably obvious but rest partly on "design choice"/"obvious to try" reasoning rather than express disclosure in the cited list; claim 4 (two vertically aligned injectors per bore) and the U-shaped strain-relief notch claims are the points where a patentee would most credibly resist a § 103 rejection.

Methodological caveats. (1) This is a technical analyst's § 103 assessment, not a legal opinion; validity is decided by courts and the PTAB. (2) I verified the content of US 9,376,997, US 9,845,740/US 10,094,353/US 2013/0298871, US 2008/0276908, and US 2011/0120413 against primary text; a few other citations (US 6,408,811; US 6,502,547; US 6,688,290; US 7,225,777; US 2009/0145406) I identified by title/abstract only and did not read in full in this session — treat those specific mapping statements as provisional. (3) If certainty matters, the next steps are (a) pulling the file wrapper to see which references the examiner actually applied against the '515 claims and how the capability language was treated, and (b) confirming whether the patentee has any objective-indicia evidence in the pending E.D. Tenn. case.