ApexTurbo LLC v. Apex Diesel: Turbocharger Patent Dispute, W.D. Pennsylvania
ApexTurbo LLC filed suit against Apex Diesel in the Western District of Pennsylvania asserting three patents covering nutless compressor wheel turbocharger designs. The case was administratively closed after 176 days when the parties jointly requested an extended answer deadline — a docket-control measure that preserves all claims and rights intact.
Turbocharger IP clash: three patents, one brand name, nutless compressor wheel designs
On May 5, 2025, ApexTurbo LLC filed an infringement action against Apex Diesel in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, asserting three patents — US10982677B2, US11598294B2, and US10914231B2 — covering turbocharger compressor wheel technology. The accused products are Apex Diesel-branded turbochargers and compressor wheels, specifically including the 3×3.5" Ball Bearing 1.25 T4 Turbo, the 2.6 Smooth Bore Boreless S400 Turbo, and the 3.0 Smooth Bore Boreless S400 Turbo, with the alleged infringement centred on designs that lack a nut at the leading end of the compressor wheel.
On October 28, 2025 — 176 days after filing — Judge Cathy Bissoon granted a joint motion by both parties to extend the deadline for Apex Diesel to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, setting a new deadline of December 1, 2025. Simultaneously, the court administratively closed the case as a docket-control measure. The order explicitly states this closure has no impact on the parties’ rights, meaning all asserted claims remain live and the substantive dispute is unresolved.
The joint nature of the extension request is notable: both parties agreed to the delay, which may suggest ongoing settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or a need for additional time to prepare a substantive response. The administrative closure is a procedural tool commonly used by courts to manage their dockets and does not constitute a dismissal or final judgment. The case is expected to resume activity no later than the December 1, 2025 answer deadline, and the public record provides no indication of the ultimate resolution direction.
Filing to Other in 176 days
176 days — administratively closed pending defendant response, no merits ruling yet
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | APEXTURBO LLC | Company | Turbocharger technology IP holder — asserting US10982677B2, US11598294B2, and US10914231B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | APEX DIESEL | Individual | Apex Diesel — seller of turbochargers and compressor wheels accused of infringing nutless compressor wheel patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Bradley Luchsinger | Attorney | Counsel for APEXTURBO LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ralph G. Fischer | Attorney | Counsel for APEXTURBO LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC | Law Firm | Representing APEXTURBO LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harness, Dickey & Pierce PLC | Law Firm | Representing APEXTURBO LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander K. Cox | Attorney | Counsel for APEX DIESELSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knox McLaughlin Gornall & Sennett, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing APEX DIESELSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Cathy Bissoon | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The operative court entry is an administrative order granting a joint extension of the answer deadline to December 1, 2025, with the case simultaneously placed in administrative closure as a docket-control device. The order contains no merits findings, no claim construction, and no infringement or invalidity rulings. Critically, the court expressly preserved all parties’ rights. This procedural posture is consistent with early-stage settlement or licensing discussions and suggests neither party has yet committed to contested litigation.
US10982677B2, US11598294B2 & US10914231B2 — Turbocharger Compressor Wheel Technology
The three asserted patents — US10982677B2 (App. No. US16/710798), US11598294B2 (App. No. US17/188371), and US10914231B2 (App. No. US16/413952) — relate to turbocharger compressor wheel technology, with the asserted infringement specifically tied to designs that omit a nut at the leading end of the compressor wheel. These are post-AIA utility patents prosecuted through the USPTO in application windows consistent with 2018–2021, covering what appears to be a structural and fastening innovation in turbocharger assembly relevant to aftermarket diesel performance components.
For the aftermarket diesel turbocharger segment, these patents represent potential chokepoint IP on a specific compressor wheel architecture. If ApexTurbo’s claims survive challenge, competitors producing smooth bore boreless S400-style turbos or similar nutless compressor wheel configurations may face infringement exposure regardless of brand. The three-patent portfolio suggests a deliberate prosecution strategy to create layered claim coverage around the same core design innovation, raising the bar for design-around efforts.
Should you run an FTO against US10982677B2, US11598294B2 and US10914231B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of aftermarket turbochargers or compressor wheels — particularly smooth bore, boreless, or nutless leading-end designs — should treat these three patents as active FTO risk. The accused products include specific S400-style turbos sold under a competing brand, but the claim language as asserted may extend to any compressor wheel lacking a nut at the leading end, making the exposure sector-wide rather than brand-specific.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US10982677B2, US11598294B2, and US10914231B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface any related continuations or divisional applications in ApexTurbo’s portfolio. With the answer deadline set for December 2025 and litigation posture still fluid, this is the optimal window to assess your exposure before merits proceedings begin.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10982677B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar turbocharger and compressor wheel patent cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement cases involving turbocharger technology and compressor wheel designs litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Pennsylvania.
What this case signals for the turbocharger and diesel performance IP landscape
Three patents, one product category, and a joint extension request — early indicators of a high-stakes IP negotiation in diesel performance.
Administrative closure is not a resolution — active IP risk remains for Apex Diesel
Judge Bissoon’s October 28 order expressly states the administrative closure has no impact on the parties’ rights. Competitors and distributors carrying Apex Diesel products should treat all three asserted patents as live enforcement risk until a merits ruling or settlement is confirmed. The December 1, 2025 answer deadline is the next inflection point.
Joint extension requests often signal settlement or licensing talks in progress
When both parties move jointly to extend an answer deadline, it typically suggests the defendant is not preparing an aggressive early challenge — instead, both sides may be exploring resolution outside the courtroom. IP teams monitoring this case should watch for a joint notice of settlement or a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal following the extended deadline.
APEXTURBO v APEX — key questions answered
As of October 28, 2025, the case is administratively closed as a docket-control measure. This does not constitute a dismissal — all parties’ rights are preserved. Apex Diesel’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was extended to December 1, 2025 pursuant to a joint motion granted by Judge Cathy Bissoon.
ApexTurbo LLC asserts three US patents: US10982677B2, US11598294B2, and US10914231B2. All three relate to turbocharger compressor wheel technology, with infringement alleged specifically against Apex Diesel products that lack a nut at the leading end of the compressor wheel, including specific S400-style and T4-style turbocharger models.
Administrative closure in this context is a procedural docket-management tool used by the Western District of Pennsylvania court. Judge Bissoon’s October 28, 2025 order expressly states it has no impact on the parties’ rights. The case remains live, all asserted patent claims are intact, and the matter is expected to reactivate upon the December 1, 2025 answer deadline.
The complaint targets Apex Diesel-branded turbochargers and compressor wheels including the 3×3.5" Ball Bearing 1.25 T4 Turbo, the 2.6 Smooth Bore Boreless S400 Turbo, the 3.0 Smooth Bore Boreless S400 Turbo, and similar products lacking a nut at the leading end of the compressor wheel. The ‘and similar’ language suggests ApexTurbo intends the accused product scope to extend beyond the three named models.
ApexTurbo LLC is represented by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC and Harness, Dickey & Pierce PLC, with attorneys James Bradley Luchsinger and Ralph G. Fischer on record. Apex Diesel is represented by Knox McLaughlin Gornall & Sennett, P.C., with attorney Alexander K. Cox appearing for the defendant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.