A California Central District Court jury delivered a decisive victory for Delta T LLC, operating under the trade name Big Ass Fans, against rival HVLS fan manufacturer MacroAir Technologies, Inc. in Case No. 5:20-cv-00728. After more than four years of litigation, the jury found MacroAir liable for infringing two claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,458,859 and one claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,900,041, awarding $926,543 in patent damages plus prejudgment interest at 7% per annum. The court additionally imposed a permanent injunction against MacroAir’s infringing product lines, which spanned ten fan models including the AirVolution-D series, and ordered $1,851,222 in false advertising disgorgement, bringing total monetary exposure to approximately $2.77 million.

This outcome carries significant implications for IP strategy in the high-volume low-speed (HVLS) industrial fan market and beyond. The combination of willful false advertising findings alongside patent infringement—and the resulting disgorgement remedy—illustrates the compounding liability risk when competitors simultaneously imitate patented technology and make misleading comparative warranty claims. Patent attorneys, in-house IP counsel at industrial equipment companies, and R&D teams developing competing fan technologies should closely study how Delta T’s multi-patent assertion strategy and Lanham Act overlay produced an outsized damages result relative to the core patent award.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The patents at issue cover core technology in high-volume low-speed (HVLS) industrial fan systems. U.S. Patent No. 9,458,859 relates to fan motor control and operational systems enabling efficient, variable-speed rotation of large-diameter fan blades in commercial and industrial settings. U.S. Patent No. 8,900,041 covers aspects of fan drive and blade assembly configurations designed to optimize airflow delivery and energy efficiency. U.S. Patent No. 8,672,649, on which MacroAir prevailed, pertains to additional fan blade or structural configurations that the jury found MacroAir did not infringe. Together, these patents protect the engineering innovations that allow HVLS fans to circulate large volumes of air at low rotational speeds in warehouses, gyms, and industrial facilities.

• • US8900041B2
• • US9458859B2
• • US8672649B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Alston & Bird LLP; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; Latham & Watkins LLP; Spertus Landes and Josephs, LLP; Tyz Law Group PC; Vedder Price LLP; Vedder Price PC (lead: Ann Marie Wahls)
Defendant Counsel: Dean Gazzo Roistacher LLP; Mahesh Law Group PC; SML Avvocati PC (lead: Adrian R. Lyons)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Delta T LLC filed this action on April 8, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a plaintiff-friendly venue with experienced commercial litigation infrastructure and proximity to MacroAir’s California-based operations. Filing in the Central District rather than MacroAir’s home district or a patent-specialized venue like the District of Delaware reflects a strategic choice to litigate where the defendant’s business activities and witnesses were most accessible, potentially streamlining discovery and reducing the risk of a transfer motion succeeding. As a first-instance district court proceeding resolved on the merits by jury verdict, this case carries full preclusive weight as to the claims actually litigated.

The case ran for approximately 1,596 days—roughly four years and four months—from filing to closure on August 21, 2024, reflecting the complexity typical of multi-patent HVLS litigation involving extensive claim construction, expert discovery on both technical infringement and false advertising damages, and coordination among large legal teams on both sides. The case terminated via a judgment on the merits for the plaintiff, consistent with the jury’s verdict, indicating that no dispositive motion or settlement short-circuited the proceedings. The willful false advertising finding and the permanent injunction signal that the jury and court found MacroAir’s conduct sufficiently egregious to warrant both exemplary disgorgement and prospective equitable relief, rather than a damages-only outcome.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The jury found MacroAir Technologies liable for infringing claim 1 and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,458,859 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,900,041, awarding $926,543 in patent damages plus 7% per annum prejudgment interest. The court also found willful false advertising arising from MacroAir’s warranty duration and competitive comparison statements, ordering disgorgement of $1,851,222 in false advertising profits, post-judgment interest at the Treasury yield rate, and entering a permanent injunction against MacroAir’s infringing products. MacroAir prevailed on claims 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,672,649, which were found not infringed, and all remaining claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The verdict cause was an infringement action spanning three patents and Lanham Act false advertising claims, with the following specific legal grounds driving the outcome:

• The jury found literal or doctrine of equivalents infringement of two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 10) of U.S. Patent No. 9,458,859, covering fan motor control systems, across MacroAir’s entire product lineup of ten fan models.
• Infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,900,041 was separately established, suggesting MacroAir’s fan drive or blade assembly architecture fell within the scope of Delta T’s protected design even after claim construction.
• MacroAir’s warranty marketing statements—including claims of a ‘50,000-hour unlimited warranty’ equivalent to ’24 years of use’ and assertions that competitors only offer forward operation—were found to constitute willful false advertising under the Lanham Act, triggering disgorgement of profits rather than merely compensatory damages.
• MacroAir successfully defended against claims 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,672,649, demonstrating that Delta T’s assertion strategy was not uniformly successful and that targeted claim-by-claim defense can limit liability even in cases where infringement is found on other patents.

Legal Significance

1. 1. The court’s entry of a permanent injunction against MacroAir’s ten named product lines—following a jury verdict rather than a preliminary injunction motion—establishes that HVLS fan patent holders can achieve market exclusion remedies at trial when willfulness or egregious competitive conduct is demonstrated, reinforcing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange considerations in favor of practicing patent holders.
2. 2. The disgorgement award of $1,851,222 for false advertising—nearly double the $926,543 patent damages award—illustrates that Lanham Act false advertising claims layered onto patent infringement actions can substantially amplify total defendant exposure and shift litigation economics in favor of asserting parties.
3. 3. MacroAir’s partial victory on U.S. Patent No. 8,672,649 signals that even in multi-patent infringement actions with jury verdicts for plaintiffs, defendants can successfully differentiate product architectures from specific patent claims, making precise claim mapping and design documentation critical to limiting liability.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When drafting infringement contentions in HVLS or mechanical equipment cases, assert multiple independent claims across multiple patents to ensure that a partial win on claim construction or non-infringement does not eliminate the damages case—Delta T’s success on eight of ten asserted claim-patent combinations demonstrates the resilience of a broad assertion strategy.
• Consider pleading Lanham Act false advertising claims alongside patent infringement where the defendant has made comparative marketing statements about product performance or warranty superiority, as disgorgement remedies can dwarf patent damages and create significant settlement pressure.
• Prosecute continuation and divisional applications covering multiple claim architectures (motor control, drive assembly, blade geometry) so that any one design-around by a competitor will still infringe remaining family members—the three-patent strategy here provided coverage even when one patent failed at trial.
• Prepare permanent injunction evidence from the outset of litigation by documenting direct competition, market harm, and the inadequacy of monetary relief, so that post-verdict injunctive relief motions are well-supported for district courts applying eBay’s four-factor test in favor of practicing entities.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at industrial equipment companies should audit competitor marketing materials—including warranty claims, comparative duration statements, and operational capability assertions—for Lanham Act exposure simultaneously with patent clearance reviews, as this case shows that marketing language can generate disgorgement liability equal to or greater than patent damages.
• Portfolio managers in the HVLS and commercial fan sector should map their product lines against Delta T LLC’s active patent family covering U.S. Patent Nos. 8,900,041 and 9,458,859, and monitor any continuations or related applications that may expand claim scope following this litigation win.

For R&D Teams:

• Engineering teams at fan manufacturers or HVLS system developers should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis specifically against the infringed claims—claim 1 and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,458,859 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,900,041—before finalizing motor control architecture or drive system designs, as these claims survived both litigation and jury scrutiny.
• MacroAir’s partial non-infringement victory on U.S. Patent No. 8,672,649 demonstrates that targeted design-around efforts focused on specific claim limitations can succeed; R&D teams should document design choices that distinguish their implementations from asserted claims to create a contemporaneous record supporting non-infringement positions.