US 11333083B2

I'll verify the patent against live sources before summarizing.

Let me check for any CAFC 2026 appellate activity and PTAB proceedings involving this patent.

Let me verify the IPR proceeding and check for any Federal Circuit appeal.

US 11,333,083 B2 — Verification and Summary

Sourcing note / date conflict. Your instruction header says the current date is April 26, 2026, while my working context is dated September 30, 2026 (the same date the Google Patents page for this document was fetched). This matters because two of the enforcement items below carry dates after April 26, 2026. I flag both dates wherever relevant rather than silently picking one.

Identifier discipline. I searched only for 11333083B2 / US 11,333,083. Note that this document is a continuation, so searches surface closely related sibling patents that are different numbers and must not be confused with it — in particular US 11,118,515 B2 (the parent, app. 16/208,246) and US 11,225,916 B2 (a separate continuation of a different chain, app. 16/953,825, also titled "Electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly"). The results below are for 11,333,083 only.

Bibliographic data (confirmed against the full text and search results)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11333083/en

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 — the four-barrel assembly. A throttle body that bolts to an engine (upper inlet, lower outlet) with four bores. A first fuel-component cover sits on one side and serves bores 1–2; a second cover sits on the opposite side and serves bores 3–4. Each of the four bores gets a first fuel injector sitting at least partly inside the body and entering horizontally. A connecting fuel passage runs from a fuel inlet and splits into a cross-channel plus a vertical passageway housed at least partly in the covers; the vertical passageway feeds the injector. Each injector sprays into a fuel-distribution ring (one per bore), and that ring has multiple apertures that meter fuel into the bore. Finally, a throttle shaft passes through the body and through one pair of the four bores, and is oriented perpendicular to the horizontal axis of each injector.

Claim 6 — the single-bore, expandable version. Same basic throttle body, but with one bore and one fuel-component cover on a first side. A first fuel injector sits horizontally inside the body. The connecting fuel passage (again cross-channel + vertical passageway, at least partly in the cover) is arranged so that it can fluidly communicate between the first injector and a second fuel injector for the same bore — i.e., the design is cast/plumbed for two stacked injectors even if only one is installed. Throttle shaft orientation is again perpendicular to the injectors' horizontal axis, and the injector(s) feed a fuel-distribution ring with apertures opening into the bore.

Claim 14 — the multi-bore, dual-cover version. A throttle body with a plurality of bores, a first cover on one side and a second cover on the opposite side, and a horizontally-inserted first injector. The connecting passage (cross-channel + vertical passageway) is disposed within each cover and is in fluid communication with a first and a second injector within each cover; the two injectors of the first cover both feed the first bore. Again the vertical passageway is "capable of" feeding the second injector, which is "capable of" being positioned at least partially within the throttle body. Both injectors direct fuel into at least one fuel-distribution ring whose apertures feed each bore.

Dependent claims: 2–5 depend from claim 1 (claim 2 adds a second injector per bore; claim 3 ties the vertical passageway to it; claim 4 ties it to a fuel-distribution ring; claim 5 adds an electronic control unit). Claims 7–13 depend from claim 6 (claim 7 recites vertically-aligned first/second injectors; claim 8 adds third/fourth injectors for a second bore; claim 9 places them in the first cover; claim 10 makes the bore count four; claim 11 places the connecting passage on a first side; claim 12 adds a second, opposing cover; claim 13 adds an ECU wired to both injectors). Claims 15–18 depend from claim 14 (claim 15 ECU; claim 16 third/fourth injectors in the first cover for a second bore; claim 17 a total of four injectors within the second cover; claim 18 those four injectors feeding the third and fourth bores).

Drafting observations (analyst opinion, not legal advice). Claim 1's fuel-circuit clause — "said vertical passageway is in fluid communication with said first fuel injector in fluid communication with each bore of said four bores corresponding to said first fuel component cover and said second fuel component cover" — is grammatically awkward and may be a construction/indefiniteness target. Claims 6 and 14 lean heavily on "capable of" language for the second injector and the vertical passageway; capability language of that kind is frequently attacked under §§ 112(a)/(b) because it may not require the structure to actually be present or actually perform the function. I flag these as unresolved risk areas, not as adjudicated findings.

Litigation and post-grant activity (search results)

• District court: Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26‑cv‑00059 (E.D. Tenn.), filed March 6, 2026, Nature of Suit 830 (Patent). The Google Patents page for this document itself carries the "US case filed in Tennessee Eastern District Court" link to this case number. Per a public complaint analysis, the accused product is the Aces Killshot Fusion EFI System, a four-bore throttle body assembly; the complaint appears to assert both the '083 patent (independent claim 1) and the '515 parent patent (independent claim 9), with the first count docketed by one source under a copyright‑infringement cause code alongside the patent count.
  • https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection#overview
  • https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/tned/1:26-cv-00059/holley-performance-products-inc-v-aces-fuel-injection-inc
• PTAB: IPR2026‑00433, Aces Fuel Injection Inc v. Holley Performance Products Inc, petition filed July 23, 2026, status Pending, no institution decision and no final written decision shown as of the retrieved data. The public tracker does not (in the snapshot I retrieved) state which patent number the petition targets.
  • https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00433/aces-fuel-injection-inc-v-holley-performance-products-inc

Explicit uncertainties

1. No CAFC 2026 docket for US 11,333,083 was found. I searched the Federal Circuit docket space and found no appeal or appellate proceeding naming this patent or this case as of the retrieval. Absence of a search hit is not proof that no appeal exists — appellate dockets are frequently not indexed by patent number. Treat "no 2026 CAFC activity" as unverified rather than confirmed.
2. Which claims/patents the IPR2026‑00433 petition challenges is unconfirmed. I could not retrieve the petition document itself.
3. Assignee status is a recording-level inference. The Wells Fargo filing is a security interest; I have not seen a release or an assignment away from Holley.
4. The expiration date and priority/legal-status fields are Google Patents assumptions, expressly disclaimed as such on the page itself.
5. I did not independently verify the inventors' full names/addresses against USPTO PatentCenter or the assignment records; the four names match between the Google Patents bibliographic field and the recorded assignment (assignors: GIESKE, AMY; LAYMAN, ADAM; SAMS, JONATHAN; SHEHAN, LAURA, recorded 2021‑04‑22).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11333083B2 across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific district court case and IPR references I'm seeing.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,333,083 B2 ("'083 patent")

I searched litigation-tracking sources (RPX Empower, Unified Patents, Darts-IP link embedded in the patent document, Justia Dockets, PACER-derived aggregators, PTAB/PTAB-style trackers). Exactly one district court case asserting the '083 patent is identified, plus one related AIA proceeding. No CAFC appeal or ITC Section 337 action naming this patent was found.

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

Sources:

• RPX Empower — "Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.," 1:26-cv-00059, E.D. Tenn., filed 03/06/2026: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection#overview
• Case/PTAB-style docket page (PACER-sourced): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/tned/1:26-cv-00059/holley-performance-products-inc-v-aces-fuel-injection-inc
• Justia Dockets (E.D. Tenn., NOS 830): https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-tennessee/court-tnedce/noscat-10/nos-830
• The '083 patent's own Google Patents record lists the same case (Tennessee Eastern District Court, case 1:26-cv-00059) under "Family has litigation," via Unified Patents: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Tennessee%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00059

What the complaint asserts about the '083 patent (as summarized by a complaint-analysis source):

• Independent claim 1 of the '083 patent is asserted. The analysis maps each element of claim 1 (four bores; first/second fuel component covers associated with two bores each; a horizontally extending fuel injector for each bore; cross-channel + vertical connecting fuel passage in each component cover; fuel distribution ring with apertures; throttle shaft perpendicular to the injector axis) to the accused products.
• Accused product: the Aces Killshot Fusion EFI System, described as a four-bore throttle body assembly mounted on an internal combustion engine, sold via Defendant's website and third-party automotive parts distributors.
• Notably, the complaint also asserts a second patent referred to in the analysis as the '515 patent (independent claim 9), which on the family record corresponds to U.S. Patent No. 11,118,515 B2 — the parent of the '083 patent (both claim priority to Dec. 4, 2017; US 16/208,246 → US 11,118,515 B2, and its continuation → US 11,333,083 B2).

Caveat: The complaint-analysis page states the complaint did not include the referenced claim-chart exhibits, so the exact set of asserted claims for the '083 patent should be confirmed against the operative complaint and any infringement contentions.

2. Related AIA proceeding (PTAB — not district court litigation)

• IPR2026-00433 — Aces Fuel Injection Inc v. Holley Performance Products Inc (petitioner Aces; patent owner Holley). Listed filing date 07/23/26; status Pending; no institution decision or final written decision yet. Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00433/aces-fuel-injection-inc-v-holley-performance-products-inc
  • This appears to be Aces' parallel validity challenge to the Holley patents asserted in E.D. Tenn. I could not confirm from available results which patent(s)/claims IPR2026-00433 targets — it may or may not specifically challenge the '083 patent. Treat the patent number for this IPR as unverified.

Notes, caveats, and anomalies

1. "Family has litigation" flag. The '083 patent record carries a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation filed" indicator and the Unified Patents E.D. Tenn. case link — both consistent with the single case above. No separate family members' litigation (e.g., the AU or WO counterparts) was found asserting this patent.
2. Date inconsistency to flag. Your instructions set "today" as April 26, 2026, yet the IPR2026-00433 record shows a filing date of 07/23/26 (a future date relative to that), and the patent document I was given was fetched 2026-09-30. I am reporting these dates literally as they appear in the sources rather than correcting them, per the strict rule. This should be re-verified against PACER/PTAB before relying on it.
3. No other cases found. I found no other district court suits, no CAFC appeals, and no ITC § 337 investigations involving U.S. Patent No. 11,333,083 B2. (Search noise included unrelated matters such as Mr. Gasket, Inc. v. Holley Performance Products, Inc., 1:04-cv-00221 (N.D. Ohio) and Holley Performance Products, Inc. v. Quick Fuel Technology, 1:07-cv-00185 (W.D. Ky.) — these do not involve the '083 patent, which did not issue until 2022.)
4. Verification recommended. RPX/Justia/aggregator dockets are secondary sources. The definitive record is PACER for 1:26-cv-00059 and the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for IPR2026-00433.

Bottom line: The only known litigation involving US 11,333,083 B2 is Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059 (E.D. Tenn., filed March 6, 2026), currently pending and without an outcome. A related, still-pending IPR petition (IPR2026-00433) by Aces against Holley has also been filed, though its precise patent target is unconfirmed.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before writing the report.

Those results were not on-point. Let me run more targeted searches.

Key litigation lead found. Let me confirm the IPR picture and dig into the co-pending case.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — US 11,333,083 B2

Patent: Electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly
Patent Owner: Holley Performance Products, Inc. (Bowling Green, KY)
Appl. No.: 17/226,477 · Filed: 2021-04-09 · Granted: 2022-05-17 · Priority: 2017-12-04
Continuation of: US 16/208,246 (now US 11,118,515 B2)
Claims: 18 total (independent claims 1, 6, 14; dependents 2–5, 7–13, 15–18)
Report date: 2026-09-30

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file against US 11,333,083 B2: ZERO. Per the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal, there are no IPRs, no PGRs, and no CBM reviews involving this patent — no institutions, no denials, no settlements, no Final Written Decisions. The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Defensive posture: This is not a "hardened patent" story and it is not a "claims are dead" story — it is a blank slate. All 18 claims are untested at the Board. Nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone. The patent is, however, actively being asserted: Holley sued Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. in the Eastern District of Tennessee on 2026-03-06 (1:26-cv-00059), pleading claim 1 of the '083 and claim 9 of the '515 (see RPX Empower). A defendant today faces a live, un-IPR'd patent with a freshly-filed lawsuit — which means the § 315(b) window is open and the patentability record is completely undeveloped.

No AIA trial proceedings to report

Because there are no proceedings on this patent, no per-proceeding sections (proceeding number, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) can be populated without fabricating docket content. I am not doing that. The absence is confirmed by two independent checks:

1. Structured ODP data (canonical): zero AIA trial proceedings indexed for US 11,333,083 B2.
2. Live web search (run 2026-09-30): no IPR/PGR petition, institution decision, or FWD naming this patent surfaced. Searches on the patent number, on "Holley Performance Products" as patent owner before the PTAB, and on the litigation parties returned only district-court and family-prosecution material.

Caveat: ODP ingest lags. A petition filed in the last ~60–90 days could exist unindexed. The one item below is the only adjacent hit I found, and it does not appear to be a proceeding on this patent.

Adjacent activity — flagged, but NOT a proceeding on this patent

IPR2026-00434 — (reported) challenge to an Aces Fuel Injection patent

• Type: Inter Partes Review (reported)
• Filed: 2026-07-23 (reported)
• Status: Reported as newly filed; no institution decision found. Details unverified.
• Relationship to this patent: None established. A secondary source reports the proceeding is styled around Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. as the patent owner — i.e., it targets an Aces patent, not Holley's '083. If accurate, it is a counter-punch in the same commercial dispute, not an attack on the '083. Source: legaltechmonitor.com, "New PTAB Challenge Targets Aces Fuel Injection Patent in IPR2026-00434".
• Confidence: LOW. That write-up reads as auto-generated summary content; it does not state the challenged patent number, the petitioner, or the grounds, and it contradicts itself on whether the caption leads with the petitioner or the patent owner. Do not rely on it. Verify on PTAB PTACTS/E2E before citing.
• Why it matters anyway: A fuel-injection validity fight between Holley and Aces would be the natural precursor to a reciprocal IPR against the '083. Track it.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '083: all 18 claims UNTESTED. There is nothing to report on the canceled/sustained axis — no claim of this patent has ever been construed by the Board, instituted on, or cancelled. The assertion map from the complaint (1:26-cv-00059) is:

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered by an instituted IPR and a final written decision. Neither has occurred here, so no petitioner and no privy is estopped from anything, and no prior art has been "reasonably could have raised"-boxed. For a defendant now facing assertion, the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art remains available — including art already cited on the face of the patent, though practitioners should expect the Board to run an Advanced Bionics / § 325(d) analysis on any reference the examiner substantively considered. The '083's prosecution record carries 57 patent citations and 31 non-patent citations, so a careful § 325(d) filter is worth doing up front.

Pattern signals. (a) No serial-petitioner pattern — no petitioner has filed anything against this patent, let alone multiple petitions. (b) No PTAB appeal history — Holley has never had to defend this patent at the Board, so there is no CAFC appeal chain, no remand, and no claim-amendment-after-institution history (no § 316(d) motions, which matters because a certificate-amended claim would be the only amended text to analyze). (c) No defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents appears only via the portal's litigation-data feed, not as a petitioner. (d) The family shows a "[First worldwide family litigation filed]" flag, consistent with Holley shifting from portfolio-building to enforcement in 2026. (e) Notably, Holley is a habitual patent owner, not a habitual PTAB respondent — the '083 is a continuation in a dense family (US 11,118,515, US 11,225,916, US 10,294,902, US 10,570,866, US 10,012,197) that has been granted and maintained without a single AIA challenge.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the null result before relying on it. Re-run the ODP check and a PTACTS party search for both "Holley Performance Products" and the patent number. If a petition was filed in the last fiscal quarter, it may not have propagated. Zero IPRs on a patent asserted in a 2026 complaint is plausible but is also exactly the condition under which an unindexed filing hides.
2. Diarize the § 315(b) window immediately. The complaint was filed 2026-03-06. The one-year bar runs from service of the complaint, not filing — pull the PACER proof-of-service docket entry for 1:26-cv-00059 and compute the bar date from that. If service occurred in March 2026, the likely bar is ~March 2027. Any IPR against the '083 must be on file before it, or the defendant loses the forum permanently.
3. Build grounds against all three independent claims, not just claim 1. Claim 1 is what is asserted now, but claims 6 and 14 are unasserted and broader in some respects (claim 6 requires only one bore and a second injector capable of being positioned in it; claim 14 requires only "a plurality of bores"). If you only invalidate claim 1, Holley amends or asserts 6/14 and you are back where you started — and you cannot file a second petition on the later-asserted claims if § 315(b) has run.
4. Mine the citation record for candidate art. The '083's own IDS cites the closest-known field art, including US 9,376,997 B1 (Fuel Injection Technology Inc., "EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors"), US 10,094,353, US 9,303,578, US 9,845,740, US 10,012,197, US 10,294,902, and US 9,115,671 (hybrid carburetor/fuel injection). Several of these are Holley's own earlier patents describing the same fuel-distribution-ring and side-injector architecture — self-art is powerful under § 103 and is not easily § 325(d)-shielded if it was cited only in a bare IDS list. Expect heavy § 325(d) resistance on anything the examiner substantively discussed.
5. Track IPR2026-00434 and the district case in parallel. If IPR2026-00434 is indeed an Aces-patent challenge, its institution decision tells you which way the Board is leaning on fuel-injection prior art in this exact field, and whether the parties are heading toward a global settlement that would moot the 1:26-cv-00059 assertion.
6. Do not build a defense on non-existent outcomes. There is currently no FWD to link, no claim of the '083 that has been cancelled, and no estoppel to invoke. Any argument that "claims 1–5 have been canceled" would be false — all 18 claims stand unadjudicated.

Bottom line

No AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against US 11,333,083 B2, and none is on file as of 2026-09-30. All 18 claims are untested, the patent is active (anticipated expiration 2038-12-03), no estoppel attaches, and every § 102/§ 103 ground is still available to a challenger — but the clock started when Holley served its 2026-03-06 complaint against Aces.

I'll start by gathering the assignment record and related litigation/ownership data from the sources available.

Let me pull the specific assignment reel/frame records and the litigation details.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame entries and the litigation's asserted patents.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 11333083B2

Scope note / data limitation up front. USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) is a session-based search interface; I was unable to retrieve reel/frame numbers or recorded correspondent fields for this patent — those fields are not exposed on the Google Patents legal-events mirror that is the authoritative full text supplied to me. What follows is reconstructed from the recorded legal events on the patent document itself plus corroborating public sources. I am not inventing reel/frame values. The event dates, conveyance types, and party names below are pulled verbatim from the patent's legal-events record; the reel/frame and correspondent columns are flagged as not retrieved rather than guessed.

Inventors

Pattern notes. All four inventors execute a single assignment-of-interest to Holley Performance Products, Inc., recorded 2021-04-22 — i.e. an employer assignment of the continuation's rights, not an inventor-to-third-party transfer. There is no evidence in any source I could reach that any inventor departed Holley within 12 months of filing or that any inventor-held reversion or license-back exists. Absent a personnel record or a later assignment naming an inventor individually, I cannot opine on post-filing tenure. This is unclear, not adverse.

Original assignee

Holley Performance Products, Inc. — named as original assignee on the face of US11333083B2 and original assignee of the parent (US16/208,246 → US11118515B2).

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. The patent is the throttle-body EFI architecture for Holley's carburetor-replacement EFI throttle bodies (the Sniper/Terminator-style four-bore EFI unit family; the specification expressly frames the device as a carburetor retrofit, and FIG. 1 shows it mounted on an engine with an air cleaner). Whether the specific commercial part is branded Sniper vs. Terminator is not something I can confirm from the record I reached.
• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture, and marketing of high-performance automotive aftermarket parts (carburetors, EFI systems, exhaust, safety/racing gear). Public parent is Holley Inc. (NYSE: HLLY), CIK 1822928.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy. Holley Inc. remains SEC-reporting, closed on the HRX S.r.l. acquisition (March 18, 2026) and divested the Drake/ADS brands (April–June 2026) per its 10-Q notes — all activity inconsistent with a distressed liquidation of this portfolio.

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame and correspondent-of-record could not be retrieved for the entries below. I am listing exactly what the record establishes and marking the missing fields explicitly.

• Recorded 2021-04-22 (execution date not stated in the record) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (the record reads "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignors: GIESKE, AMY; LAYMAN, ADAM; SAMS, JONATHAN; SHEHAN, LAURA
  • Assignee: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard employee/inventor assignment into the operating employer, recorded nine days after the continuation was filed (2021-04-09). Not a sale.

• Recorded 2021-11-19 (execution date not stated; corresponds to the Credit Agreement dated 2021-11-18 among Holley Inc. as Borrower and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Administrative Agent — see Holley Inc. Form 8-K filed 2021-11-19, Exhibit 10.1) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security interest (collateral grant / patent security agreement — a lien, not a transfer of title)
  • Assignors (grantors): ACCEL PERFORMANCE GROUP LLC; B&M RACING & PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.; DRAKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC.; MSD LLC; POWERTEQ LLC
  • Assignee (secured party): WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — the six grantors are the Holley Inc. credit-group guarantor subsidiaries; this is the lender's blanket IP lien over the portfolio, filed one day after the credit agreement was executed. Not an ownership change.

• Recorded 2025-01-02 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of address (record reads "RECEIVING PARTY DATA CHANGE OF ADDRESS")
  • Assignor: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.
  • Assignee / receiving party: HOLLEY PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Pure change of name/address housekeeping — same entity on both sides. No ownership movement.

There is no recorded post-issuance assignment of US11333083B2 away from Holley Performance Products, Inc. The only interest ever recorded against the patent other than Holley's is a lien (Wells Fargo). For the NPE question that is the headline finding.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11333083B2
    2017 : Provisional filed Dec 4
    2018 : Parent application filed Dec 3
    2021 : Continuation application filed Apr 9
         : Inventors assign to Holley Apr 22
         : Wells Fargo security interest Nov 19
    2022 : Patent issued May 17
    2025 : Holley change of address Jan 2
    2026 : Holley sues Aces Fuel Injection Mar 6

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee in the chain carries an IP/Holdings/Ventures/Licensing suffix, and there is no licensing-only LLC anywhere in the record. Every ownership-side entry (2021-04-22, 2025-01-02) names Holley Performance Products, Inc., an operating manufacturer. The one non-operating party — Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2021-11-19) — is a secured lender taking a lien, not title; a security interest is not a shell-entity transfer and must not be miscounted as one.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Holley appears on none of the enumerated NPE registries (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities) and is not surfaced as a high-frequency plaintiff. To the contrary, RPX Empower classifies the plaintiff in 1:26-cv-00059 as "Patent Owner — Operating Company" (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-[123355](/patent/123355)-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection). Note that Holley is a repeat patent plaintiff in a narrow sense — it has asserted this family more than once — but repeated assertion by a product company against competitors is operating-company enforcement, not troll behavior.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / DATA GAP.
The recurrence test cannot be run because the correspondent-of-record is not visible in the legal-events record I could reach, and the USPTO Assignment Center interface did not return the reel/frame rows. This is the one column of the analysis where I have a genuine gap, and I decline to fill it with a plausible-looking attorney name. To close it, query Assignment Center by patent number and read the correspondent field on each of the three 2021/2025 entries; if the 2021-11-19 security-interest entry shows a lender-side firm (Wells Fargo's IP counsel) and the other two show Holley's prosecution firm, expect two different correspondents — which would be a negative finding. No evidence of a single repeat-player attorney running a chain exists here because no chain of LLCs exists here.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There is no sequence of chained LLC-to-LLC transfers, in or out of 24 months. The full ownership path is a single line: inventors → Holley, and it has not moved since (2025-01-02 is a same-party address update).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The most recent event touching ownership date is the 2021-04-22 inventor assignment; the most recent event touching the record at all is the 2025-01-02 address change. Suit was filed 2026-03-06 (Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059, E.D. Tenn.; complaint analysis confirms it pleads Claim 1 of the '083 patent, col. 1, alongside the '515 patent). That is ~14 months after the last record event and ~5 years after acquisition — nothing was arranged within six months of filing to manufacture standing or venue. Standing rests on the 2021 assignment and the uninterrupted Holley ownership since.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding by Holley Performance Products, Inc. or Holley Inc. appears anywhere in the record or in SEC filings; the 2021-11-19 Wells Fargo entry is a going-concern credit facility, and the company has continued acquiring (HRX, March 2026) and divesting non-core brands (Drake, ADS, 2026). Debt-heavy, but solvent and operating.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer to any third-party assertion vehicle, and the assertion is being made by the product manufacturer, in its own name, against a rival EFI vendor (Aces Fuel Injection, Inc. — accused product: the Aces Killshot Fusion EFI System, described in the complaint ¶25 as a four-bore throttle body assembly "designed to compete with Plaintiff's own EFI products in the automotive aftermarket" at Compl. ¶27). That is the textbook opposite of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Holley, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. The patent has not been neutralized; it is live, asserted, and part of an expanding family (Google Patents shows Holley continuation US12421907B2, priority 2023-07-15, granting 2025-09-23, and an Edelbrock application US12429021B2, priority 2023-11-08, granting 2025-09-30 — i.e. competitors are now filing in the same space).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Holley Performance Products, Inc. — the original assignee on the face of the patent and the sole ownership-side assignee at every recorded event (2021-04-22 assignment, 2025-01-02 address change) — remains the owner, with the only ever-recorded third-party interest being a lien granted to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on 2021-11-19 under the Nov. 18, 2021 credit agreement, not a transfer of title. Holley is a product-shipping manufacturer (parent: Holley Inc., NYSE: HLLY) and is asserting the patent in its own name against a direct competitor, Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., in Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Aces Fuel Injection, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00059, E.D. Tenn., filed 2026-03-06, pleading Claim 1 of the '083 patent — which RPX Empower independently classifies as "Operating Company" plaintiff activity. Every NPE signal tests negative except the repeat-correspondent test, which is unresolved solely because the reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable from the sources I could reach; that gap is a tooling limitation, not evidence of a concealed chain, and no inference of NPE status should be drawn from it.

Verification link (Assignment Center, search by patent number):
https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — enter 11333083 in the patent-number field; the Google Patents legal-events mirror is https://patents.google.com/patent/US11333083B2/en (Legal Events section), and the mirrored assignment index is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Litigation confirmation: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/tnedce-123355-holley-performance-products-v-aces-fuel-injection and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Tennessee%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00059.

I'll research US patent 11333083B2 and its cited prior art. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me gather details on several additional cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,333,083 B2

1. Identification & Confirmation of the Patent

A targeted search for US11333083B2 confirms the record below (and returns no other patent for that exact number). All identifiers are reproduced literally as they appear in the USPTO/Google Patents record.

Caution on which citations are "prior art." The patent's own "References Cited" list mixes (i) true § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art, (ii) the applicant's own earlier applications (potential § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership-excepted), and (iii) 1970s–80s carburetor art cited only as background. I flag each below.

Threshold caveat: A § 102 anticipation rejection requires a single reference disclosing every element of one claim, arranged as claimed. Most references below are better characterized as § 103 obviousness candidates; I identify only where a genuine single-reference § 102 argument is plausible. I do not have an element-by-element claim chart for each reference, so the § 102 assignments that follow are candidate anticipations, not conclusive.

2. The Claims to Be Compared

• Claim 1 (independent): throttle body mountable to an engine; four bores; first fuel-component cover on a first side (bores 1–2) and second fuel-component cover on the opposite side (bores 3–4); one horizontally-extending fuel injector per bore; a connecting fuel passage from a fuel inlet comprising a cross-channel passageway and a vertical passageway at least partly in each cover, the vertical passageway feeding the injector; each injector feeding a fuel-distribution ring with a plurality of fuel apertures opening into the bore; and a throttle shaft through the body that is perpendicular to the horizontal direction of the injectors.
• Claims 2–5 (dependent): second injector per bore; vertical passageway also feeds it; second injector feeds a (second) distribution ring; electronic control unit (ECU).
• Claim 6 (independent): single‑bore version of the above, with the connecting passage "capable of fluid communication" with a second injector on the same bore; distribution ring with apertures; throttle shaft perpendicular to the injectors.
• Claims 7–13 (dependent): vertically aligned first/second injectors; third/fourth injectors on a second bore within the first cover; four bores; passage on one side; second cover opposite; ECU.
• Claim 14 (independent): multi-bore version, first/second covers plus first/second injectors per bore, distribution ring, etc.
• Claims 15–18 (dependent): ECU; third/fourth injectors in the first cover; total of four injectors in the second cover; those four injectors serving third and fourth bores.

3. Most Relevant Prior Art (Group A)

A1. US 9,376,997 B1 — EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors

• Citation: US 9,376,997 B1 (Farrell et al.), appl. 14/994,966 filed 2016-01-13, granted 2016-06-28, assignee Fuel Injection Technology Inc.
• Disclosure: "A core body with two side components. The two side components each including a fuel delivery passage. Four air intake passages extending vertically through the throttle body. Valves … connected to valve shafts … The valve shaft axes and the fuel delivery passages are perpendicular to each other." Further: a sleeve in each intake passage having a plurality of orifices through its wall, a passage defined by the sleeve "fluidly connected" to the orifices, fuel injectors positioned between the core body and the side component, and an ECU box on a second side of four vertically extending sides, the first side and second side not parallel (i.e., ~90°).
• § 102 potential: This is the single most material reference. It discloses, in one document, the four-bore body, the two opposed side fuel-delivery components, the horizontal (side) injectors feeding a sleeve/ring whose orifices discharge into the bore, and the perpendicular shaft/injector relationship. It is a credible § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) candidate against claim 1, claim 6 and claim 14. Gap to argue: the claim requires a connecting passage comprising a "cross-channel passageway and a vertical passageway"; US 9,376,997's side fuel rail is described as a single passage, so anticipation may turn on whether the cross-channel/vertical sub-passages are expressly or inherently disclosed. If not, this reference is at minimum a strong § 103 base.

A2. US 9,482,198 B1 — EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors

• Citation: US 9,482,198 B1 (Farrell et al.), appl. 15/194,235 filed 2016-06-27, granted 2016-11-01, Fuel Injection Technology Inc.; continuation of US 9,376,997.
• Disclosure/§ 102: Substantively the same specification/claims as A1 (side fuel delivery components, four intake passages, perpendicular shaft/fuel-passage relationship). Same candidate-anticipation analysis and same "cross-channel/vertical passageway" gap as A1 for claims 1/6/14. Useful as the § 102(a)(2) counterpart to A1 because it has an earlier effective filing date.

A3. US 2017/0198672 A1 — EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors

• Citation: US 2017/0198672 A1 (Fuel Injection Technology Inc.), published 2017-07-13 (priority 2016-01-13).
• Disclosure/§ 102: Published-application member of the same Farrell/Fuel Injection Technology family; discloses the same side-injector, four-intake-passage throttle body. Published before the 2017-12-04 priority date, so it is § 102(a)(1) art. Same claim-1/6/14 candidate analysis and same cross-channel-passageway gap as A1/A2.

A4. US 2013/0298871 A1 / US 10,094,353 B2 — Throttle body fuel injection system with improved fuel distribution

• Citation: US 2013/0298871 A1 (Bennett & Webber), published 2013-11-14, and US 10,094,353 B2, granted 2018-10-09 (appl. 13/470,121 filed 2012-05-11), assignee MSD LLC (Autotronic Controls Corporation).
• Disclosure: "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 fuel injection rings are two-piece … The insert includes axial grooves … joined by a circumferential groove … in fluid communication with a conduit that supplies fuel from a fuel injector." The ECU "is integrated into the side of throttle body opposite the throttle linkage."
• § 102 potential: Directly discloses the "fuel distribution ring having a plurality of fuel apertures directing fuel into a bore" limitation of claims 1, 6 and 14, plus the four-bore arrangement and ECU placement. But its injectors feed the ring through a fuel conduit rather than a side fuel-component cover with a cross-channel + vertical passageway, and the injectors are not shown horizontally mounted through a side cover. So it is a strong § 103 combination base (§ 103 with A1/A2) rather than a clean single-reference § 102 for the independent claims. It is a good § 102 candidate for the ring/aperture sub-features alone.

A5. US 9,845,740 B2 — Throttle body fuel injection system with improved fuel distribution and idle air control

• Citation: US 9,845,740 B2, granted 2017-12-19 (MSD LLC), same 2012-05-11 priority family as A4.
• Disclosure/§ 102: Same four-bore / distribution-ring / side-mounted-ECU subject matter as A4, plus idle-air-control and "feed-forward" ECU features. Same ring-aperture § 102 argument and same side-cover/cross-channel gap as A4.

A6. US 9,303,578 B2 — Throttle body fuel injection system with improved idle air control

• Citation: US 9,303,578 B2, granted 2016-04-05 (MSD LLC / Autotronic Controls), 2012-05-11 priority.
• Disclosure/§ 102: Family member of A4/A5; single-point four-barrel throttle body with fuel injectors feeding a distribution structure and integrated idle-air-control. Relevant to the distribution-ring and ECU-integration aspects; same gaps as A4.

A7. US 2018/0119656 A1 / US 10,294,902 B2 — Electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly

• Citation: US 2018/0119656 A1, published 2018-05-03; US 10,294,902 B2, granted 2019-05-21 (appl. filed 2016-10-28), assignee Holley Performance Products, Inc.
• Disclosure: Carburetor-replacement EFI throttle body with side-mounted fuel components, injectors, and an ECU on the throttle body; described as providing improved fuel pathways and a wire-routing notch.
• § 102 potential: Because it is the same applicant (Holley) with an earlier effective filing date (2016-10-28), it is a § 102(a)(2) reference that is likely disqualified under the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception. If not excepted (e.g., assignment timing differs), it would be highly material against claims 1, 5–6, 13–15 (ECU on throttle body, fuel-component covers, injector layout). Flag for verification of ownership dates.

A8. US 2015/0108256 A1 / US 10,012,197 B2 — Fuel injection throttle body

• Citation: US 2015/0108256 A1, published 2015-04-23; US 10,012,197 B2, granted 2018-07-03, assignee Holley Performance Products, Inc.
• Disclosure/§ 102: Holley fuel-injection throttle body. Predates the 2017-12-04 priority date and is Holley-owned; relevant to the throttle-body/fuel-injector layout but same common-ownership consideration as A7. Candidate § 102 art for the broad throttle-body/injector combination, not specifically for the cross-channel/vertical passageway or distribution-ring limitations.

A9. US 2011/0120413 A1 — Throttle body fuel distribution assembly

• Citation: US 2011/0120413 A1 (Runia & Reese), published 2011-05-26 (appl. 12/623,702 filed 2009-11-23; abandoned), assignee Competition Cams, Inc.
• Disclosure: Throttle body with a throttle bore, an injector port, a fuel injector, a fuel rail assembly, and a fuel dissemination device (a distribution pin press-fit into a channel) that deflects/disperses the injector spray into the airflow.
• § 102 potential: Discloses fuel-distribution structure downstream of a throttle-body injector, which is relevant to the "plurality of fuel apertures directing fuel into the bore" concept, but it uses a pin/deflector, not an apertured ring/sleeve, and does not show side covers, four bores, or cross-channel/vertical passages. Weak on its own; useful only as a § 103 secondary reference on fuel-distribution. (The Google Patents record shows this application was abandoned for failure to respond.)

A10. US 2009/0145406 A1 / US 7,735,475 B2 — Fuel injection body sized to replace carburetor body

• Citation: US 2009/0145406 A1, published 2009-06-11 (priority 2007-10-12); corresponding US 7,735,475 B2, granted 2010-06-15, inventor Kenneth William Farrell.
• Disclosure: Fuel-injection unit sized to replace an existing carburetor, with concealed fuel injectors, and end caps that overlie the fuel injectors and contain the fuel-line connections, the end caps giving the appearance of carburetor fuel bowls.
• § 102 potential: Directly relevant background for the fuel-component-cover-over-injector concept of claims 1/6/14 (side covers concealing injectors), and it appears in the same inventor lineage as A1–A3. It does not disclose four side-feed bores, a cross-channel/vertical connecting passage, or an apertured distribution ring → § 103 reference, not a clean § 102.

4. Secondary References (Group B) — ECU-on-Throttle-Body & Integrated Control

5. Background Carburetor Art (Group C) — Colt Industries / Coltec

Cited references US 4,224,908 A; US 4,230,645 A; US 4,246,875 A; US 4,294,282 A; US 4,306,441 A; US 4,318,214 A; US 4,325,339 A; US 4,357,283 A; US 4,434,762 A; US 4,434,763 A; US 4,556,032 A; US 4,949,983 A; US 5,012,780 A; US 5,261,382 A (1978–1992, Colt Industries/Coltec Industries) and the design patents USD 447,147; USD 508,496; USD 543,555; USD 555,668; USD 578,550; USD 645,058 describe air-fuel-ratio control, induction-passage/venturi structure, and stand-alone/fuel-injection systems for carburetors.

• § 102 relevance: These are background/analogous-art citations. They disclose carburetor bodies, venturi induction passages and single-point fuel-injection retrofits, but none discloses the claimed combination of (i) four bores with (ii) opposed fuel-component covers each containing (iii) a cross-channel + vertical connecting passage feeding (iv) horizontal side injectors that discharge through (v) an apertured fuel-distribution ring, with (vi) a perpendicular throttle shaft. They do not anticipate any of claims 1–18; at most they support a § 103 motivation regarding carburetor-replacement form factor.

6. Consolidated § 102 Conclusions

7. Bottom Line & Verification Flags

1. US 9,376,997 B1, US 9,482,198 B1 and US 2017/0198672 A1 (Farrell / Fuel Injection Technology Inc.) are the most relevant prior art. They disclose, in a single document, the four-bore carburetor-replacement body, two opposed side fuel-delivery components concealing horizontally mounted side injectors, an orifice-perforated sleeve/ring discharging into each bore, and a throttle-shaft axis perpendicular to the fuel passage — i.e., most elements of claims 1, 6 and 14. Whether they constitute a clean § 102 anticipation depends entirely on whether the "cross-channel passageway and a vertical passageway" limitation is expressly or inherently present; otherwise they are the primary § 103 base.
2. US 10,094,353 B2 / US 9,845,740 B2 / US 9,303,578 B2 (MSD LLC) are the most relevant art for the apertured fuel-distribution ring limitation.
3. US 2018/0119656 A1 / US 10,294,902 B2 and US 2015/0108256 A1 / US 10,012,197 B2 (Holley) are earlier Holley filings; because they share the applicant, they are candidates for the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception and should be screened for ownership/assignment dates before being relied upon.
4. The 1970s–80s Colt/Coltec carburetor citations are background only and do not anticipate any claim.
5. The record also reflects family litigation (E.D. Tenn. case 1:26-cv-00059) and a related design-patent portfolio; family members US 11,118,515 B2, AU 2018378315 B2 and WO 2019/112963 A1 share the 2017-12-04 priority.

Limitations of this analysis: I could not retrieve full text/claims for every reference (e.g., detailed claim language of US 10,294,902 B2 and US 9,845,740 B2 was only partly available), and no reference was reviewed element-by-element against every dependent claim. The § 102 designations above are therefore best-effort candidate anticipations; a conclusive validity opinion would require full-text claim charts for claims 1–18 against the Group A references, plus confirmation of the § 102(b)(2)(C) ownership facts for the Holley references.

I'll ground this analysis by verifying key prior-art references from the page's citation list. Let me run several targeted searches.

Strong grounding so far. Let me verify the remaining key references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,333,083 B2 (“Electronic fuel injection throttle body assembly”)

Assignee: Holley Performance Products, Inc. · Priority: 2017‑12‑04 · Filed (app. 17/226,477): 2021‑04‑09 · Granted: 2022‑05‑17 · Continuation of 16/208,246 (US 11,118,515 B2)

Primary source for the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11333083/en

1. Legal framework applied

• 35 U.S.C. § 103 / Graham v. John Deere — scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, PHOSITA level, and secondary considerations.
• KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — a combination is obvious where the improvement is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; “obvious to try” applies where the design space is small and the solution predictable.
• MPEP 2143 / 2144 rationales relied on below: (A) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (E) design incentives/market forces; (F) duplication of parts; (G) predictable variation.

Presumed PHOSITA (c. Dec. 2017): a B.S. in mechanical or automotive engineering and 2–3 years of experience designing aftermarket EFI/carburetor-replacement throttle bodies, or equivalent hands-on experience with retrofit throttle-body injection (TBI) hardware. This is a mature, low-complexity mechanical/electromechanical arts field.

Prior-art status of the cited references (dates taken literally from the page)

2. The independent claims at a glance

• Claim 1 — 4‑bore body; two fuel‑component covers on opposite sides, each serving two bores; a horizontal first fuel injector for each of the 4 bores; connecting fuel passage = cross‑channel + vertical passageway inside each cover feeding the injector; injectors feed fuel‑distribution rings with a plurality of apertures into the respective bores; throttle shaft through one pair of the four bores, perpendicular to the injector axis.
• Claim 6 — single‑bore version; two injectors (“capable of” language for the second) fed by the vertical passageway; same ring/aperture delivery; same perpendicular shaft.
• Claim 14 — multiple bores; two covers; first + second injectors fed within each cover from the vertical passageway and feeding a bore; ring with apertures into each bore.

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over US 9,376,997 B1 in view of US 10,094,353 B2

US 9,376,997 B1 (“EFI throttle body with side fuel injectors”) is the closest art and discloses nearly every element on its own face:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US9376997
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/87/54/f576303159da4f/US9376997.pdf

US 10,094,353 B2 (MSD) fills any perceived gap in the ring/atomization sub‑feature:

• “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”
• “The insert includes axial grooves… joined by a circumferential groove… The grooves are 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 the throttle body opposite the throttle linkage”
• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10094353B2](/patent/US10094353B2)/en

Motivation to combine. Both are bolt‑on TBI units expressly designed to replace square‑bore four‑barrel carburetors (MSD: “designed and arranged to easily replace four‑barrel carburetors… 4150 and 4160 designs”; ‘997: “existing bolt‑on EFI throttle bodies… constructed to approximate the appearance of prior carburetor designs”). Both attack the identical problem — uneven fuel distribution/atomization across four bores and packaging under a hood. A POSITA seeking better atomization and avoidance of Venturi low‑pressure zones would adopt MSD’s ring‑and‑groove insert as a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (MPEP 2143(C)), as a simple substitution of the sleeve/orifice arrangement for the grooved ring with a reasonable expectation of success (both are press‑fit/machined inserts seated in a throttle bore, gravity‑fed from a side rail).

The one weak element. Claim 1 recites the connecting passage as a “cross‑channel passageway and a vertical passageway… at least partially disposed within” each cover. US 9,376,997 B1 discloses a rail passage plus a transfer passage, but I did not find express disclosure of a T‑shaped cross‑channel + vertical runner within a removable cover. This is the element most amenable to a non‑obviousness argument. A POSITA would nonetheless regard it as a predictable plumbing expedient (MPEP 2144.04 – obvious mechanical configuration) for feeding injectors at two elevations from a single inlet, and it is squarely disclosed in Holley’s own US 2018/0119656 A1 material (see §7) — but that material carries a real § 102 problem for these purposes. I would not represent this element as clearly met without a secondary reference expressly showing a bifurcated cover passage (candidate: US 2015/0108256 A1 / US 10,012,197 B2, Holley, pub. 2015‑04‑23 — content not verified here).

4. Ground 2 — Dependent claims 2–5

• Claims 2–4 (second, vertically aligned injector per bore; same vertical passageway feeding it; same or second ring). ‘997 already mounts multiple injectors on each side component and vertically stacks distribution features; MSD’s ring pairs a plurality of apertures with a circumferential feed groove. Duplicating an injector to add fuel capacity is duplication of parts / predictable variation (MPEP 2144.04, 2144.04(I)) with an expected benefit of higher flow on high‑horsepower engines — the very rationale the ‘083 spec itself recites (“When larger engines are utilized and higher horsepower is required, more fuel injectors 1170 may be desirable”). The two‑row aperture ring of claim 4 follows directly from the two‑elevation injector stack.
• Claim 5 (ECU). Disclosed by ‘997 (ECU box on the non‑parallel side) and MSD (“ECU 132 integrated into the side of the throttle body”). Also supported by Nikki US 2008/0276908 A1 (“Throttle apparatus having electronic control means built‑in”), Visteon US 6,408,811 B1 (integral interconnect circuitry) and US 6,688,290 B2 (integrated fuel delivery + powertrain control module), and Siemens US 6,502,547 B2 (foamed‑over IC on an intake manifold, supporting the potting limitation discussed in the spec).

5. Ground 3 — Claim 6 (single bore; “capable of” second injector)

Claim 6 is broader than claim 1: it recites a second injector “capable of being positioned,” i.e., an idle/cast port. This is a classic design‑capacity limitation. ‘997 + MSD render it obvious, and the motivation is explicitly one of modularity/scalability — the ‘083 specification itself describes casting two ports and machining only the ones needed. The same concept appears in Holley’s US 2018/0119656 A1 (“at least a second fuel injector port cast at each of said bores and configured for machining… the first and second fuel injectors having an alignment direction which is substantially perpendicular to the throttle shaft”), although that reference’s prior‑art status is questionable (§7). Claims 7–9 (vertical alignment; third/fourth injectors on a second bore; injectors “disposed within” the first cover) are met by ‘997’s arrangement in which “the fuel injector is positioned between a portion of the core body and the first component” and “[t]he first component comprises a wall that shrouds the fuel injector.” Claims 10–13 follow from ‘997 (four bores; passages on a first side; second opposite cover) and MSD (left/right fuel rails).

6. Ground 4 — Claims 14–18

Claim 14 is a genus‑level restatement of the ‘997 + MSD combination: multiple bores; two covers; horizontal injector; a vertical passageway within each cover capable of feeding first and second injectors of a bore; and a distribution ring with apertures into each bore. US 9,376,997 B1 supplies every structural element except the explicit cross‑channel/vertical‑within‑cover geometry and the “second injector capable of being positioned” alternative; US 10,094,353 B2 supplies the per‑bore apertured ring and the side‑mounted ECU. Claims 15–18 add only an ECU and progressive injector counts (four injectors per cover, feeding third and fourth bores) — pure duplication of parts with predictable results.

7. Material caveats, and where the analysis is weakest

1. Common‑inventor Holley material is probably not prior art. US 2018/0119656 A1 / US 10,294,902 B2, US 2021/0071592 A1 and US 11,225,916 B2 name Shehan, Gieske, Sams and Layman — the same inventive entity as the ‘083 — and published after 2017‑12‑04 (2018‑05‑03 et seq.). They are therefore not § 102(a)(1) art, and § 102(a)(2) requires the application to “name another inventor,” which the identical entity defeats. These references supply the best express disclosure of the “cross‑channel/vertical passageway in a cover” and “cast second injector port” features, but they cannot properly be used against the ‘083. The examiner’s citation of US 2018/0119656 A1 on the face of the patent should be scrutinized.
2. Unverified references. I was unable to retrieve and confirm the specific disclosures of US 10,012,197 B2 / US 2015/0108256 A1 (Holley), US 2009/0145406 A1 (Farrell), US 2008/0276908 A1 (Nikki), and the Visteon/Siemens patents within this session. Their titles and citation positions support the motivations stated, but I have not verified element‑level disclosure, and none should be asserted as a primary reference without checking the specifications.
3. Structural mismatches to expect in litigation. (a) ‘997’s first/second passages are “interconnected by a transfer passage that is defined within the core body,” whereas the ‘083 emphasizes a closed passage with “no crossover between front 129 and rear 127” — claim 1 does not require closure, but a POSITA/defendant will argue the references teach away from a closed, single‑side passage. (b) MSD’s ring is a two‑piece insert pressed into an outer housing, whereas the ‘083 forms a channel between the ring’s outer surface and the bore inner diameter. Claim 1 recites only a “fuel distribution ring having a plurality of fuel apertures directing fuel into [the] bore,” so the difference is not claim‑dispositive under the broadest reasonable interpretation, but it matters for a doctrine‑of‑equivalents or narrow‑construction fight.
4. Secondary considerations are absent from the record reviewed here. The page notes first worldwide family litigation (Darts‑IP family 66658939) and a U.S. case in the Tennessee Eastern District Court, 1:26‑cv‑00059 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Tennessee%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00059). Commercial success in that dispute would need a nexus to the claimed features; none is established here. A “copying” theory is also complicated by the extensive prior Holley/MSD/FIT art in the same field.
5. Overlapping § 102 exposure. If US 9,376,997 B1 is read as disclosing the connecting‑passage geometry, claim 1 is arguably anticipated, not merely obvious — the § 103 analysis above is the conservative framing.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 — Strong § 103 case over US 9,376,997 B1 (primary; four bores, opposed fuel‑delivery covers each serving two bores, horizontal injectors perpendicular to a pair‑spanning throttle shaft, sleeve with orifices feeding each bore, ECU on an adjacent side) in view of US 10,094,353 B2 (per‑bore apertured fuel‑distribution ring; side‑integrated ECU). The cross‑channel + vertical cover passageway is the sole element I could not confirm in a properly qualifying reference; on this record it is supported chiefly by same‑inventor Holley material that likely does not qualify as prior art.
• Claims 2–5, 7–13, 15–18 — Obvious as duplications/predictable variations and as fully met by the same two references plus conventional ECU‑integration art (Nikki, Visteon, Siemens).
• Claims 6 and 14 — Obvious over the same combination; the “capable of” second‑injector limitation is a scalability/capacity recitation supported by the express motivations in the references and the ‘083’s own specification.
• Highest‑value invalidity theory: a single‑reference (anticipation‑flavored) attack on claim 1 using US 9,376,997 B1, with US 10,094,353 B2 as a backup for the ring and ECU elements — while being prepared to answer the “closed passage” and “cover‑resident vertical passageway” distinctions.