Short Summary
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01423 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,530,654 for an off‑board fuel regulator, the petitioners—MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc., and Generac Power Systems, Inc.—jointly requested that the settlement agreement filed as Exhibit 1300 be treated as business confidential information. They seek to have the agreement kept separate from the patent file and disclosed only upon written request by federal agencies or persons showing good cause, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and relevant CFR provisions. The Board is asked to notify the parties of any third‑party access requests and allow them to respond.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MWE Investments, LLC et al. vs Champion Power Equipment, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a InstacartvsFall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Avation Medical, Inc.vsEMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Meta Platforms, Ic.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' 8,585,476 patent covering location‑based AR games, asserting five §103 obviousness grounds based on prior art such as Jaszlics and Piekarski.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.vsNivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.