Klein Tools Inc v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00233
• Patent #: 11,656,067
• Filed: January 26, 2026
• Petitioner(s): Klein Tools, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Tape Measure with Increased Standout
• Brief Description: The ’067 patent discloses a tape measure with an elongate blade having a specific curved cross-sectional profile. The patent asserts that this "aggressive or steep" profile, defined by various dimensional ratios and ranges, results in an increased "standout" distance—the length the blade can be extended before buckling—of over 150 inches.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Hernandez - Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are anticipated by Hernandez under 35 U.S.C. §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hernandez (Patent 7,096,596), which incorporates by reference Murray (Patent 6,324,769).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hernandez, either on its own or through its explicit incorporation of Murray, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Hernandez teaches a tape measure with a concavo-convex blade profile designed to increase standout. Petitioner asserted that the specific claimed ranges for blade thickness, length, flat width, curved width, and curved height are all disclosed within the overlapping or encompassing ranges taught by Hernandez and the incorporated Murray reference. For the critical standout limitation of "greater than 150 inches," Petitioner pointed to Murray's disclosure of a standout of "up to approximately 13 feet [156 inches]."
  • Key Aspects: The argument relies on the principle that a prior art reference disclosing a range that overlaps or encompasses a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of anticipation. Petitioner contended that the burden shifts to the Patent Owner to prove the criticality of the claimed ranges, which it argued the Patent Owner cannot do, as the ’067 patent itself admits most dimensional parameters were known.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hernandez and Murray - Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are obvious over Hernandez alone, or in combination with Murray, under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hernandez (Patent 7,096,596) and Murray (Patent 6,324,769).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that the combination of teachings in Hernandez and Murray renders the claims obvious. Both references address the same problem of increasing tape measure standout by manipulating blade geometry (thickness, width, curvature). The dimensional ranges disclosed in the prior art overlap with and surround the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references are directed to the same field and goal. Hernandez’s citation of Murray would have prompted a POSITA to look to Murray to solve the known problem of increasing standout. The overlap in disclosed dimensional ranges itself provides the motivation to optimize these known parameters to achieve the desired, predictable result of improved standout.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because adjusting blade dimensions to affect standout was a well-understood principle in the predictable mechanical arts. The references explicitly teach that parameters like thickness and width are "result-effective" variables for achieving standout, making optimization a matter of routine experimentation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hernandez and Gilliam - Claim 10 is obvious over Hernandez in view of Gilliam under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hernandez (Patent 7,096,596) and Gilliam (Application # 2004/0071869).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claim 10, which adds upper and lower polymer coatings to the tape measure of claim 1. Petitioner argued Hernandez discloses the base tape measure with an elongate metal core. Gilliam explicitly teaches applying polymer powder coatings to both sides of a metallic, concavo-convex tape measure blade to increase abrasion resistance and provide a low-friction surface for easier coiling. Gilliam also discloses a coating thickness ("not more than about 0.001 inches") that, when combined with the blade core thickness from Hernandez, results in a total thickness range that overlaps with the range claimed in claim 10.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to achieve the recognized benefits from each. There was a clear motivation to apply Gilliam's protective and low-friction coating to Hernandez's high-standout blade to create a superior product that was both long-reaching and durable. This combination integrates known elements for their predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was a simple application of a known coating technique to a known type of product to improve its longevity and performance. Both references describe tape measures, and the proposed modification would not alter the fundamental operation of either element, leading to a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner stated that while it has argued in parallel district court litigation that terms such as "standout distance," "curved width," and "curved height" are indefinite, for the purposes of this IPR it adopted the Patent Owner's plain and ordinary construction. Petitioner contended that even under this construction, the prior art unambiguously discloses these limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d). Although the Murray reference was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of the ’067 patent, it was never used as the basis for a rejection or substantively discussed by the Examiner. Petitioner asserted that the Examiner therefore misapprehended or overlooked the significance of Murray’s specific disclosures related to blade dimensions and their effect on standout.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’067 patent as unpatentable.