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
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
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.