Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02371/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02371-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Champion Power Equipment Incorporated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Firman Power Equipment Incorporated,

Defendant.

No. CV-23-02371-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for discovery dispute 

resolution. (Doc. 109.) The Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and rules 

as follows.

As background, in May 2015, Champion’s chief technology officer “saw a Firman 

RD9000E dual fuel generator at a trade show.” (Id. at 2.) This May 2015 date is potentially 

significant because it falls a few weeks before “Champion filed the patent application for 

the bulk of its dual fuel generator patents.” (Id. at 2, 5.) 

The parties’ discovery dispute concerns Firman’s Interrogatory No. 12, which “asks 

Champion to state whether Champion believes the Firman RD9000E generator includes 

the claim elements identified in Firman’s invalidity contentions.” (Id. at 2. See also id. at 

5 [“Rog 12 requires Champion to analyze ‘Firman’s Invalidity Contentions’ and take 

positions on whether Champion admits to the ‘identity’ of ‘each element in the RD9000E 

identified by Firman.’”].) Firman argues that the information sought in Interrogatory No.

12 is relevant because one of its “key defenses . . . [is] that Champion’s patents are invalid 

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 111 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because Firman sold a prior art generator (the RD9000E) whose structure, function, and 

operation is nearly identical to the generators Champion now accuses” and that “[g]iven 

the similarities between the RD9000E and the accused products, . . . any construction that 

would show Firman’s current products infringe Champion’s patents, must also show their 

predecessor (the RD9000E) invalidates those patents.” (Id. at 2, emphases omitted.) 

Firman continues: “Champion’s position on how the claim terms in the asserted patents 

could cover one product (the accused generators) while not covering another nearlyidentical product (the RD9000E) is critical to Firman’s analysis.” (Id. at 3, emphasis 

omitted.) Meanwhile, Champion objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on what appear to be three 

grounds: (1) Firman has not proved that the RD9000E qualifies as prior art; (2) Firman has 

not preserved or produced an RD9000E unit from May 2015; and (3) Firman’s invalidity 

contentions are flawed in various respects. (Id. at 3-7.)

The Court will focus on Champion’s second objection because it is dispositive. It 

is undisputed that neither Champion nor Firman has “access to . . . the actual RD9000E 

[from May 2015] that could be inspected and tested.” (Id. at 5.) Despite this, Firman 

argues that Champion has the ability to respond to Interrogatory No. 12 because Firman 

has “produced engineering drawings, user manuals, and schematics disclosing the relevant 

components, and explained that those Materials . . . accurately describe both the RD9000E 

unit displayed at the trade show and the RD9000E units sold before Champion filed its 

patent application.” (Id. at 4.) Champion, in turn, disputes whether the written materials 

produced by Firman pertain to the May 2015 version of the RD9000E, arguing that 

“Firman’s own cited electrical schematic—the only dated document connected with the 

RD9000E—is dated August 14, 2015” and “Firman’s ‘user manual’ and ‘dealer flyer’ are 

undated.” (Id. at 5.) More broadly, Champion argues that it “must inspect and analyze the 

actual device” to respond to Interrogatory No. 12 and that it should not be expected “to 

provide every detail to explain why the ghost device does not practice the Asserted 

Claims.” (Id. at 5.) Champion concludes that it “should not be required to answer Rog 12 

because of Firman’s . . . failure to produce the alleged RD9000E for inspection.” (Id. at 

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 111 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7.)

Champion has the better of these arguments. Interrogatory No. 12 effectively seeks 

to compel Champion to perform an analysis of the May 2015 version of the RD9000E and 

then, on the basis of that analysis, opine on whether that device includes the claim elements

identified in Firman’s invalidity contentions. An initial problem with this request is that, 

although “[a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or 

contention that relates to . . . the application of fact to law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2), “a 

party cannot ordinarily be forced to prepare its opponent’s case. Consequently, 

interrogatories that require a party to make extensive investigations, research or 

compilation or evaluation of data for the opposing party are in many circumstances 

improper.” Gen. Cigar Co., Inc. v. Cohiba Caribbean’s Finest, Inc., 2007 WL 983855, *3 

(D. Nev. 2007) (citation omitted). See generally Aktiebolaget Vargos v. Clark, 8 F.R.D. 

635, 636 (D.D.C. 1949) (“An adverse party should not be required to perform burdensome 

labors or to execute difficult and expensive tasks, in searching for facts and classifying and 

compiling data. A litigant may not compel his adversary to go to work for him.”). Another, 

related problem is that neither side possesses the May 2015 version of the RD9000E. 

Although it is true that “[c]ourts . . . have allowed the functions of prior art devices to be 

established through the use of documents and testimony,” IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal 

Holdings, Inc., 607 F. Supp. 3d 464, 512 (D. Del. 2022), it still strikes the Court as 

reasonable for Champion to ask that, at a minimum, it be supplied with the actual device 

in question before being required to perform the sort of analysis demanded in Interrogatory 

No. 12.

Firman’s failure to produce a copy of the device also differentiates this case from 

Resh, Inc. v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc., 2022 WL 16935625 (N.D. Cal. 2022), which 

Firman cites as a decision supporting its position. Although the court in Resh overruled

the plaintiff’s objection to an interrogatory that called for it to explain why it believed two 

particular products (“the A.G. Pro pole and the Solakian pole”) did not qualify as prior art,

the court emphasized that the objecting party “does not dispute that . . . it has known of 

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 111 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

both poles for over a year and has had an opportunity to examine them.” Id. at *2

(emphasis added). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for discovery dispute resolution 

(Doc. 109), which the Court construes as a motion to compel filed by Firman, is denied.

Dated this 13th day of January, 2025.

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 111 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 4