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
JACS Solutions, Inc.vsGlobal Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
Excelliance Mos CorporationvsForce MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.
Halozyme, Inc.vsAlteogen Inc.
Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00374, leaving the denial of institution in place.
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.