Short Summary
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Detailed Summary
In a procedural order dated January 20, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted unopposed motions to terminate the inter partes review proceedings for Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC concerning Champion Power Equipment’s patent No. 10,598,101. The Board also approved the parties’ requests to treat the settlement agreements as business‑confidential information, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and the corresponding CFR provisions. Counsel withdrawals for the settling petitioners were authorized, and the decision explicitly noted it does not constitute a final written decision, preserving confidentiality of the settlement terms. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the ongoing IPRs.
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
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al.vsNew Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00713 concerning U.S. Patent 6,916,483. The motion seeks to end the proceeding, likely reflecting a settlement between the parties.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.vsNatera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
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.