IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Ind.: Preliminary injunction denied in patent infringement dispute concerning RV stairs, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits precludes preliminary relief.

A manufacturer of RV stairs that brought a patent infringement case against a competitor was not entitled to a preliminary injunction that would bar the competitor from making and selling its competing product while the infringement claims were pending, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has ruled. The manufacturer had not shown likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claims (MORryde International Inc. v. Airxcel Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00271-CCB-JEM (N.D. Ind. Sep. 11, 2026)).

Background. At some point before February 2016, MORryde International Inc.’s employees Gary Tompkins and Anthony Granzotto began working together on an idea to improve RV stairs. According to Tompkins and Granzotto’s declarations, they presented a prototype for these stairs at a MORryde sales meeting in February 2016 (February sales meeting). Another MORryde employee, Dan Geans, also attended this meeting. As a sales representative at MORryde, Geans had previously coordinated MORryde’s fabrication of RV stairs for a different RV company called Forks RV. Forks RV initially reached out in 2014, and MORryde began producing the steps (Forks Product) in 2015 based on plans it received from Forks RV. The end customer for these steps was a company called Quixote. After seeing the prototype stairs during the February sales meeting, Geans noted that the Forks Product was similar to the prototype. Geans then emailed photographs and engineering prints of the Forks Product to Tompkins, Granzotto, and others at MORryde. MORryde then filed a provisional patent application in June 2016. The U.S. Patent No. 11,739,534 (the ’534 Patent) was issued in August 2023, and the U.S. Patent No. 12,428,850 (the ’850 Patent) was issued in September 2025 (collectively, Subject Patents). Airxcel Inc. began selling a competing product in December 2023 that MORryde alleged infringed the Subject Patents. After attempting to resolve the issue with Airxcel, MORryde filed a lawsuit on March 27, 2025. MORryde also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to preliminarily enjoin Airxcel from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the allegedly infringing staircase products until this matter is resolved on the merits. Airxcel opposed MORryde’s request.

Preliminary injunction. MORryde seeks a preliminary injunction barring Airxcel from producing stairs that allegedly infringe the Subject Patents. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show four things: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood it will suffer irreparable harm unless the preliminary injunction is granted, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Airxcel argued that a preliminary injunction is inappropriate because MORryde cannot show likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable injury, that the balance of the equities tilts in MORryde’s favor, or that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court noted that for MORryde to show likelihood of success on the merits in a patent case, it must demonstrate (1) it will likely prove infringement and (2) its infringement claim will likely withstand challenges to the validity and enforceability of the patents. If Airxcel raises a substantial question of enforceability or validity, MORryde must then show that it will likely withstand the challenge. Thus, to prevail, MORryde must successfully refute each of Airxcel’s invalidity and non-enforceability arguments.

The court first addressed Airxcel’s challenge to the enforceability of MORryde’s patents on grounds of inequitable conduct. Like the preliminary injunction MORryde seeks, the defense of inequitable conduct is equitable in nature. To successfully raise this defense, Airxcel must show by clear and convincing evidence that MORryde engaged in affirmative misrepresentations of a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent to deceive. Airxcel raised two related but distinct allegations of inequitable conduct. First, Airxcel argued that there is a substantial question over whether MORryde misrepresented the inventorship of the Subject Patents to the USPTO. Second, Airxcel argued that there is a substantial question over whether MORryde failed to disclose references it believed to be material to the USPTO.

The court found that Airxcel’s theory of inequitable conduct in the context of inventorship rests largely on what Tompkins and Granzotto knew, and when they knew it. Airxcel contended that the prototype displayed at the February sales meeting lacked many of the key features of the invention ultimately presented to the USPTO. There also appeared to be significant differences between the threshold plate in the prototype and the threshold plate described in the Subject Patents. These differences are significant because they show that the prototype underwent substantial evolution between the February 2016 sales meeting and the provisional patent application MORryde submitted in June 2016. Airxcel argued that this evolution only occurred because Tompkins and Granzotto received details of the Forks Product. After the sales meeting, Geans sent Tompkins and Granzotto prints and photographs of the Forks Product, including a close-up photograph of the threshold plate of the Forks Product. These photographs and prints show that the threshold plate eventually claimed in the Subject Patents is much closer in design to the threshold plate in the Forks Product photographs than it is to the threshold plate in the prototype photograph. Airxcel also argued that Tompkins and Granzotto’s testimony and declarations are not credible due to a number of inconsistencies and contradictions.

The court agreed with Airxcel because over the course of the evidentiary hearing, it became apparent that Tompkins and Granzotto did not have a clear memory of the events they discussed in their declaration. The assertions Granzotto and Tompkins made in their declarations have been progressively eroded by the process of discovery and live cross-examination to the point where it is difficult to credit any element of their narrative about the invention of the Subject Patents. Thus, the court was convinced it is more likely than not that Airxcel will be able to establish inequitable conduct in the context of inventorship at trial. Without showing that it is likely to overcome Airxcel’s inequitable conduct defense on this subject, MORryde cannot show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its action.

The court also noted that even if MORryde can defeat each non-infringement and invalidity argument brought by Airxcel, a substantial question still exists over whether MORryde engaged in inequitable conduct that would bar the enforcement of the Subject Patents against Airxcel. Thus, even if the court assumed the construction of the Subject Patents most favorable to MORryde, assumed that Airxcel cannot show that the Subject Patents are invalid, and assumed that Airxcel infringed the Subject Patents, MORryde cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits without overcoming Airxcel’s inequitable conduct defense.

Therefore, the court determined that MORryde failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claim.

Irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. Citing Texas Instruments Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 231 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000) the court explained that a district court may deny a preliminary injunction based on the movants failure to establish likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury without making additional findings respecting the other factors. Thus, the court determined that as MORryde did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits, it need not reach the remaining preliminary injunction factors. The court noted that even assuming MORryde showed a likelihood of irreparable injury, that the balance of the equities are in its favor, and that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest, its failure to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits is fatal to its motion.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00271-CCB-JEM.

Judge: Brisco, C.

Attorneys: Bailey A. Sanders PHV (Irwin IP LLP) for MORryde International Inc. Paul Edgar Harold (Southbank Legal LLC) for Airxcel Inc.

Companies: MORryde International Inc; Airxcel Inc.

Cases: Patent IndianaNews