Short Summary
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate Champion’s dual‑fuel generator patent (10,598,101) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing DuroMax, De Vries, Fujisawa, Nakafushi, and Olmr as prior art.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00951, Generac Power Systems, Harbor Freight Tools USA, and MWE Investments seek to have the PTAB institute an inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,598,101 owned by Champion Power Equipment. The petition alleges that claims 1‑19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over combinations of DuroMax and De Vries, and over DuroMax, De Vries, Nakafushi, and Olmr, and anticipates the claims under §102 by Fujisawa. It also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions, arguing that the “selector switch” is a movable component that enables selection of a single fuel source and that the “valve assembly” is a distinct structure comprising a fuel valve and handle. The petition includes extensive prior‑art exhibits and requests cancellation of all challenged claims.
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
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al.vsLumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsLG Display Co., Ltd.
LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLCvsSANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the 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.