Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc v. Champion Power Equipment Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01272
• Patent #: 11,492,985
• Filed: July 30, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Generac Power Systems, Inc., and MWE Investments, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Off-Board Fuel Regulator for Generator Engine
• Brief Description: The ’985 patent describes a generator and fuel delivery system where a two-stage fuel regulator is located "off-board" the generator. This off-board system regulates gaseous fuel from a pressurized source (e.g., a propane tank) in two stages to a desired pressure for operating the generator engine.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Parlatore - Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are anticipated by or, alternatively, are obvious over Parlatore.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Parlatore (Application # 2011/0100335).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Parlatore discloses all limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Parlatore teaches a fuel delivery system for engines, including generators, with a primary (first stage) and secondary (second stage) regulator that reduces the pressure of propane from a tank. Petitioner asserted that Parlatore’s Figure 3 explicitly shows the regulator system located off-board the engine, connected to a large, remote propane tank. For dependent claims 2 and 12, Parlatore expressly discloses combining the regulators into a single, two-stage unit. For dependent claims 3 and 13, Petitioner argued Parlatore’s off-board configuration shows the regulator mounted directly to the fuel source.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the alternative obviousness argument, Petitioner contended a POSITA would be motivated by Parlatore’s own teachings to use the off-board configuration with a generator. This arrangement allows for larger fuel tanks for longer run times, enhances safety by distancing the high-pressure regulator from the engine's heat and vibration, and reduces the generator's size and weight.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as connecting generators and other appliances (like BBQ grills) to off-board regulators and propane tanks was a common and well-understood practice.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Tri-Fuel Video - Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are anticipated by the Tri-Fuel Video.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tri-Fuel Video (a 2011 YouTube video demonstrating a Honda generator conversion).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted the Tri-Fuel Video discloses a complete generator and fuel delivery system that anticipates the challenged claims. The video shows a Honda generator modified to be a dual-fuel system (gasoline and propane). It explicitly details a fuel regulator system located remotely ("off-board") from the generator, attached to a propane tank. The narrator explains the system uses two regulators in series (a first stage and a second stage) to reduce the high pressure of the gas to the appropriate level for the engine. The video also clearly shows a quick-connect hose coupling (claim 7) used to attach the gaseous fuel line to the generator.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Parlatore, DuroMax, and Elsdon - Claims 4-6 and 14-15 are obvious over Parlatore in view of DuroMax and Elsdon.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Parlatore (Application # 2011/0100335), DuroMax (DuroMax XP4400EH Operator’s Manual), and Elsdon (Patent 5,718,265).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring a dual-fuel generator with a mechanical fuel valve and a "fuel lockout apparatus." Petitioner argued Parlatore teaches the base off-board, two-stage regulator system. DuroMax, a manual for a commercial dual-fuel generator, teaches a generator that runs on gasoline or LPG and includes a simple mechanical fuel valve for controlling gasoline flow. Elsdon teaches a fuel conduit coupler with a rotating cap that can be used to physically block access to a fuel inlet.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Elsdon's rotating cap with DuroMax's fuel valve to solve a known safety problem: preventing the simultaneous operation of a dual-fuel generator on both gasoline and LPG. The DuroMax manual itself warns users that one fuel source must be shut off when using the other. Linking the movement of the gasoline valve to the physical blocking/unblocking of the LPG inlet, as taught by Elsdon, was argued to be an obvious mechanical interlock solution.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because Elsdon's cap was described as a simple mechanical device suitable for retrofitting onto existing equipment, like a generator, to protect the fuel inlet. Combining these simple mechanical components would have been straightforward for a POSITA.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness and anticipation challenges, including grounds based on Chaudhari (Indian Patent No. 207333) as a primary reference, and various other combinations of Parlatore, Tri-Fuel Video, Chaudhari, and the LP-Gas Handbook.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "fuel lockout apparatus" (Claim 6): Petitioner argued this term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). It was contended that the word "apparatus" is a generic, non-structural placeholder, and the claim fails to recite sufficient structure for performing the lockout function. The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’985 patent specification was identified as a flange rigidly coupled to the fuel valve handle.
• "prevents ... from coupling" and "permits ... to couple" (Claim 6): Petitioner argued these phrases require physically blocking or allowing the attachment of the gaseous fuel source connector to the generator's fuel inlet. This construction was based on the patent's sole embodiment and prosecution history, which allegedly distinguished prior art that only prevented fuel flow without preventing physical connection.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 11,492,985 as unpatentable.