Meridian v. ToughBuilt: Tool Storage Patent Battle Stayed for IPR Review
Meridian International filed suit against ToughBuilt Industries in the Central District of California, asserting two patents covering modular tool storage systems against ToughBuilt’s entire STACKTECH product line — 13 accused SKUs in total. After 399 days, the court stayed proceedings pending inter partes review, a signal that the patent validity dispute will be decided at the USPTO before litigation resumes.
Modular tool storage patents collide: Meridian targets ToughBuilt’s STACKTECH line
Meridian International Co., Ltd. filed this patent infringement action against ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. on 21 August 2024 in the Central District of California. The complaint asserts two US patents — US11192689B2 and US11986946B2 — against thirteen distinct STACKTECH-branded products, ranging from compact small-parts organizers and tool boxes to insulated chest coolers, all featuring ToughBuilt’s modular stacking design. Meridian is represented by three law firms including Eversheds Sutherland and Cozen O’Connor, while ToughBuilt engaged Perkins Coie and Squire Patton Boggs.
The district court proceedings were stayed on 24 September 2025, 399 days after filing. The stay was granted pending inter partes review of the asserted patents — meaning ToughBuilt successfully petitioned the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review whether Meridian’s patents are valid, and the court agreed to pause litigation rather than risk conflicting outcomes. Until the PTAB issues its final written decisions, the Central District case is effectively on hold.
The relatively swift stay — granted before any trial date — suggests ToughBuilt mounted a credible IPR challenge, consistent with a strategy of attacking patent validity before incurring the full costs of district court discovery and claim construction. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise prior art basis of ToughBuilt’s IPR petitions, whether Meridian has sought to amend its claims at the PTAB, and what outcome at the PTAB would cause Meridian to resume or abandon the district court action.
Filing to Case Stayed in 399 days
399 days active before stay — IPR petitions filed relatively early in district court lifecycle
Case stayed pending IPR: what a litigation stay means for both parties
What a stay pending IPR actually means
A stay pending inter partes review suspends all district court proceedings — discovery, claim construction, and trial — while the PTAB evaluates patent validity. Courts in the Central District routinely grant such stays when IPR is instituted, as the PTAB’s findings can narrow or eliminate the claims at issue, avoiding duplicative effort. The stay here does not resolve infringement; it defers the entire merits question.
Validity challenge at PTABMeridian faces validity scrutiny before infringement is decided
For Meridian, a stay is commercially unfavorable in the short term: enforcement is paused, ToughBuilt continues selling STACKTECH products, and no injunction or damages can be awarded while proceedings are suspended. If the PTAB cancels or narrows the asserted claims, Meridian’s litigation position weakens materially. Meridian’s best outcome is a PTAB decision confirming validity, which would allow the district court case to resume with stronger presumptive enforceability.
Enforcement pausedToughBuilt buys time and shifts the battleground to the USPTO
ToughBuilt’s stay motion — and its apparent success — reflects a calculated litigation strategy: challenge validity at the PTAB, where the evidentiary standard and claim construction can be more favourable to petitioners than district court. During the stay, ToughBuilt faces no injunction risk and can continue selling the accused STACKTECH line. A favourable PTAB outcome could end the litigation entirely or sharply limit the claims Meridian can assert.
IPR strategy in playModular tool storage IP now contingent on PTAB outcome
For competitors and retailers in the modular tool storage and organizer segment, this stay creates a period of IP uncertainty. The scope and validity of Meridian’s patents covering stackable storage systems will not be resolved at the district court level until the PTAB completes its review. Companies designing or sourcing competing stackable tool storage products should monitor the PTAB proceedings for claim cancellations or amendments that could redefine the enforceable scope of these patents.
Sector-wide IP uncertaintyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Meridian International Co., Ltd. | Company | Tool storage product manufacturer and patent holder of US11192689B2 and US11986946B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. | Company | ToughBuilt Industries — developer and seller of the STACKTECH modular tool storage systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ann Grunewald Fort | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon J. Witkow | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lindsay Kriz | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Regis C. Worley , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Adam Penner | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tanvi Ketan Shah | Attorney | Counsel for Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cozen O’connor PC | Law Firm | Representing Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Eversheds Sutherland US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Witkow Baskin APLC | Law Firm | Representing Meridian International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Rockwell Maas | Attorney | Counsel for ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonesh G Daryanani | Attorney | Counsel for ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Miguel J Bombach | Attorney | Counsel for ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ramsey M. Al-Salam | Attorney | Counsel for ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ruben Tyler Kendrick | Attorney | Counsel for ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Squire Patton Boggs LLP | Law Firm | Representing ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting a stay pending inter partes review is procedural rather than substantive — no finding of infringement, validity, or damages has been made. The stay reflects the court’s assessment that the PTAB proceedings are sufficiently related to the district court claims to warrant deferral, consistent with Ninth Circuit and Federal Circuit guidance favouring stays where IPR institution is likely or confirmed. Both parties’ positions on the merits remain entirely open pending PTAB final written decisions.
US11192689B2 & US11986946B2 — Modular stackable tool storage systems
US11192689B2 (application US16/846878) and US11986946B2 (application US18/518200) cover modular, stackable tool storage systems — the category encompassing tool boxes, small-parts organizers, and compatible accessories designed to interlock and stack as a unified storage solution. The staggered application dates suggest the second patent may extend or refine protection established by the first, potentially covering incremental design or functional improvements to the core stackable enclosure concept.
For competitors in the tool storage and hardware organizer market, these patents represent a potential barrier around the stackable modular storage format that has become commercially dominant at major retail chains. ToughBuilt’s STACKTECH line competes directly with products from Stanley, DeWalt, Milwaukee, and private-label brands. A confirmed and enforceable claim set could affect any manufacturer offering interlocking-format tool boxes or organizers, making the PTAB outcome a sector-defining event beyond just this litigation.
Should you run an FTO against US11192689B2 and US11986946B2?
Any company designing, sourcing, or retailing modular stackable tool storage systems — including tool boxes, parts organizers, and compatible accessories with interlocking stacking features — should treat these patents as live FTO risks. The stay does not render the patents unenforceable; once PTAB proceedings conclude, Meridian could resume enforcement against additional defendants. Private-label sourcing teams and OEM suppliers to US hardware retailers are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US11192689B2 and US11986946B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that may support design-arounds or invalidity arguments, and track real-time PTAB petition status. R&D teams developing next-generation modular storage products can use Eureka to model which design features are within or outside the asserted claim scope before committing to tooling investment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11192689B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: modular tool storage and hardware product IP disputes
Cases involving stackable tool storage, hardware organizer patents, and infringement actions in the Central District of California against branded product lines.
What this case signals for the modular tool storage IP landscape
A stay pending IPR repositions this dispute to the PTAB, with significant consequences for tool storage patent enforcement and product design strategies.
IPR stays are a viable shield for hardware product defendants in C.D. Cal.
ToughBuilt’s successful stay motion demonstrates that engaging Perkins Coie and Squire Patton Boggs early and filing IPR petitions promptly can neutralize district court infringement risk while validity is tested at the USPTO. Hardware product companies facing infringement suits over design patents or utility patents on product configurations should evaluate IPR petitions as a first-response strategy.
Broad product line assertions invite validity challenges — 13 SKUs create exposure
Meridian’s decision to assert both patents against 13 distinct STACKTECH products amplifies the stakes but also increases ToughBuilt’s incentive to mount a serious IPR challenge. Asserting multiple patents across a wide product family is commercially aggressive but signals to defendants that a successful PTAB challenge could be highly valuable, potentially funding the cost of two or more IPR petitions.
Meridian v ToughBuilt — key questions answered
The case is currently stayed. The Central District of California granted a stay pending inter partes review of US11192689B2 and US11986946B2 on 24 September 2025. No merits ruling on infringement or validity has been issued. The case remains nominally closed at the district court level pending PTAB outcomes.
Meridian accused thirteen STACKTECH-branded products including compact and large small-parts organizers, standard and XL tool boxes, a single-drawer and three-drawer ball-bearing tool box, a crate-style tool box, and two insulated chest coolers. All products feature ToughBuilt’s modular STACKTECH stacking and interlocking design.
A stay suspends all district court proceedings — including discovery, claim construction, and trial — while the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviews patent validity. No injunction or damages can be awarded during the stay. If the PTAB cancels asserted claims, the district court litigation may be narrowed or mooted entirely. If claims survive, litigation typically resumes with PTAB findings as binding estoppel on the petitioner.
Meridian asserts US11192689B2 (application US16/846878) and US11986946B2 (application US18/518200). Both patents relate to modular stackable tool storage systems — encompassing interlocking tool boxes, organizers, and compatible accessories. The staggered application filings suggest layered protection across different aspects or generations of the stackable storage design.
Meridian International is represented by Eversheds Sutherland US LLP, Cozen O’Connor PC, and Witkow Baskin APLC. ToughBuilt Industries is represented by Perkins Coie LLP and Squire Patton Boggs LLP. Both sides engaged multiple national IP litigation firms, consistent with the commercial significance of the dispute and the breadth of the accused product line.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.