Short Summary
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Detailed Summary
In a joint request filed on January 12, 2026, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to treat the Settlement Agreement filed as Exhibit 1300 as business‑confidential information, to keep it separate from the file of U.S. Patent No. 10,697,398, and to restrict its disclosure to federal agencies on written request or to persons demonstrating good cause under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). Champion Power Equipment, Inc., the patent owner, also requested notification of any third‑party access attempts and an opportunity to respond. The petition emphasizes the parties’ mutual agreement to protect the settlement’s confidentiality while preserving limited statutory access.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. vs Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of IngenioSpec’s ‘518 headset patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over a series of prior‑art headset references. The petition groups the challenges into multiple obviousness grounds covering the full claim set.
TankLogix, LLCvsSitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al.vsLithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Chinese challengers have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of LithiumHub’s ‘994 starter‑battery patent, arguing obviousness over six prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Samsara Inc.vsMotive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition challenging Motive Technologies’ camera‑calibration patent, arguing that six grounds of obviousness under §103 render claims 1‑7 unpatentable.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.