Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02371/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02371-0/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 

re: protective order. (Doc. 65.) 

As background, this is a patent infringement action in which Champion Power 

Equipment Inc. (“Champion”) contends that Firman Power Equipment Inc. (“Firman”) 

“has willfully infringed [various] Champion Patents by importing, having made, making, 

selling, offering for sale, and/or using the technology claimed in the Champion Patents, 

despite Firman’s prior knowledge of the Champion Patents.” (Doc. 23 at 3.) 

In the pending motion, Firman expresses concern that Champion may misuse the 

confidential information that Firman will be producing as part of the discovery process in 

this case. To guard against that risk, Firman requests two forms of relief: (1) an order 

empowering each side to object to the other side’s experts before any confidential 

information may be shared with those experts; and (2) a “prosecution bar” that would 

preclude two of Champion’s attorneys in this case, Timothy Ziolkowski and Jacob Fritz, 

“from prosecuting patents in the field in which Firman operates—portable power 

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 67 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

generators—for a limited period of three years.” (Doc. 65 at 2-4.) Champion opposes 

both requests, arguing that (1) the right of objection should only apply to technical experts,

whereas objecting “to non-technical experts is unnecessary and is only designed to 

unreasonably increase litigation costs”; and (2) Firman has not made the necessary showing 

to justify a prosecution bar. (Id. at 5-6.)1 Champion also “requests full briefing on these 

issues.” (Id. at 5.)

Having reviewed the parties’ joint motion and the authorities cited therein, including 

In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Court agrees 

with Champion that additional briefing is necessary. In particular, any request for a 

prosecution bar against an individual attorney requires much more developed briefing and 

factual development. The Court does not fault the parties for failing to provide such 

development here, as the “joint discovery dispute” briefing procedure required by the 

scheduling order (Doc. 33 at 10-11) only gave them a few pages to present their positions, 

but the Court concludes that the current dispute is better resolved through formal motion 

practice.

Accordingly,

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

protective order (Doc. 65) is denied without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Firman may file a motion requesting the relief 

sought in the parties’ joint filing. Once the motion is fully briefed, the Court will rule in 

due course.

Dated this 19th day of July, 2024.

1 Champion appears to believe that Firman is requesting a prosecution bar that would 

apply to all of its attorneys in this case. (Doc. 65 at 6 n.3.) That is not how the Court reads 

Firman’s portion of the joint motion. At any rate, this is an issue that can be clarified in 

the renewed briefing authorized in this order.

Case 2:23-cv-02371-DWL Document 67 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 2