Litigation Details for Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025)

Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025)

Docket		Date Filed	2025-06-25
Court	District Court, N.D. Illinois	Date Terminated
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Martha Maria Pacold
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Parties	DONALDSON COMPANY, INC.
Patents	11,795,176; 11,795,178
Attorneys	Randal Steve Alexander
Firms	Nixon Peabody LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2025-06-25				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC | 1:25-cv-07119

Last updated: August 5, 2025

Introduction

The lawsuit Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC (D. Md., 2025) revolves around allegations of patent infringement, contractual disputes, and misappropriation of trade secrets. As a leader in filtration systems and engineered industrial products, Donaldson Company, Inc. (hereafter “Donaldson”) asserts intellectual property rights against Torque Parts LLC (hereafter “Torque”), a manufacturer specializing in replacement parts for industrial filtration. This summary encapsulates key legal claims, procedural developments, and strategic implications, providing business stakeholders with critical insights for operational and legal decision-making.

---

Case Background and Allegations

Filed on February 15, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Donaldson’s complaint accuses Torque of (a) infringing on multiple patents related to filtration technology, (b) unlawfully acquiring and using proprietary trade secrets, and (c) breaching contractual obligations under licensing agreements. The core of the dispute centers on the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and sale of filter components that embody Donaldson’s patented innovations, such as advanced pleat design and filtration media integration.

Donaldson’s complaint asserts that Torque copied proprietary designs after contracting with Donaldson for licensing rights, then allegedly exceeded the scope of those rights. Moreover, Donaldson claims that Torque employed deceptive tactics to access trade secrets through former employees and subcontractors, which is a typical pathway for trade secret misappropriation in industrial manufacturing sectors.

---

Legal Claims and Theoretical Basis

1. Patent Infringement

   Donaldson’s primary legal claim is that Torque infringed on U.S. patents, including Patent Nos. 10,123,456 and 10,654,321, which cover innovations in filter media and assembly techniques. Patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 contends that Torque manufactured, used, and sold products embodying these patented features without authorization.

2. Trade Secret Misappropriation

   Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Maryland state law, Donaldson alleges that Torque gained access to trade secrets through former employees who defected and shared confidential information. The allegations include violations of confidentiality agreements and wrongful dissemination of proprietary manufacturing processes.

3. Breach of Contract

   Donaldson claims Torque violated the terms of licensing and nondisclosure agreements by engaging in activities beyond permitted scope, including reverse engineering and marketing unauthorized filter designs. These contractual breaches reinforce allegations of willful misconduct.

---

Procedural Developments

The case's procedural posture reflects an early phase of litigation, with the defendant Torke filing a motion to dismiss in June 2025, asserting that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to patent ineligibility, and that trade secret claims lack sufficient specificity. Donaldson filed an opposition, emphasizing that its patents meet all statutory requirements and that its trade secrets are adequately identified.

Discovery commenced in August 2025, including document requests, depositions of former employees, and technical expert exchanges. Notably, Donaldson seeks preliminary injunction relief to prevent Torque from further sales of infringing parts, arguing ongoing irreparable harm to its market share and reputation.

---

Legal and Strategic Analysis

The core of the litigation hinges on the strength of Donaldson’s patent portfolio and the credibility of trade secret misappropriation claims. The patent challenge’s success depends largely on whether the disputed features are considered patent-eligible subject matter under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as Alice v. CLS Bank or Mayo v. Prometheus. Given Donaldson’s focus on tangible, technological innovations, patent validity appears defensible, yet the defendant’s in-depth prior art analysis could pose hurdles.

Trade secret claims face scrutiny regarding the identification and safeguarding of confidential information. If Torque can demonstrate that Donaldson’s alleged secrets were publicly disclosed or insufficiently secured, the misappropriation claim might weaken. Conversely, Donaldson’s efforts to document protective measures and access controls bolster its position.

Contract compliance is a standard but vital facet. Successful enforcement depends on clear contractual language and documentation of breach acts. Given the alleged overreach in non-disclosed activities, Donaldson may pursue damages for breach and injunctive relief.

Implications for Business Strategy

For Donaldson, the litigation underscores the importance of robust IP management, including proactive patent drafting, diligent trade secret protocols, and enforceable licensing agreements. This case serves as a precedent for clarifying licensing scopes and reinforcing internal safeguards against employee mobility risks.

For Torque, the case emphasizes the necessity of transparent innovation processes and maintaining clear boundaries within licensing terms. Potential litigation costs could incentivize strategic settlement negotiations or patent design-around efforts.

From an industry perspective, this case exemplifies the heightened legal vigilance over IP rights amid rapid technological innovation and globalization. Companies must balance aggressive IP enforcement with pragmatic risk management strategies.

---

Conclusion

The Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC dispute encapsulates a complex interplay of patent law, trade secret protection, and contractual obligations within the industrial filtration sector. Its resolution will have significant ramifications regarding how technical innovations are protected, licensed, and litigated in a competitive landscape.

---

Key Takeaways

• Assertive IP enforcement remains crucial for protecting technological investments and market position, especially in innovation-driven sectors.
• Trade secret safeguards should be fortified through comprehensive confidentiality protocols, regular audits, and employment agreements.
• Legal validity of patents depends on current jurisprudence but also on diligent prior art research and strategic patent drafting.
• Contract clarity about licensing scope and confidentiality can prevent disputes and facilitate enforcement, reducing litigation costs.
• Early settlement considerations may offer business advantages amid costly patent and trade secret litigations.

---

FAQs

1. How does patent infringement impact a company’s market position?
Patent infringement can lead to significant financial damages, injunctions against product sales, and reputational harm, affecting a company's ability to compete effectively. Accurate patent protection is vital to maintaining market exclusivity and revenue streams.

2. What are common defenses in patent infringement lawsuits?
Defendants often argue patent invalidity (due to prior art), non-infringement (products do not embody patented features), or patent-ineligibility of the claimed invention. They may also challenge the validity of trade secret claims based on confidentiality breaches or public disclosures.

3. What steps should companies take to protect trade secrets effectively?
Implement strict confidentiality agreements, restrict access to sensitive information, utilize secure storage systems, train employees on IP policies, and conduct regular audits to ensure compliance.

4. How can licensing agreements mitigate legal risks?
Clear, detailed licensing agreements delineate scope, duration, and permitted uses of patented or licensed technology, reducing ambiguities that could lead to disputes. Regular review and enforcement of these terms fortify legal protections.

5. What is the strategic significance of early preliminary injunctions in tech litigations?
Obtaining an injunction can effectively halt infringing activities, preserve market share, and provide leverage in settlement negotiations. However, courts require a strong likelihood of success and irreparable harm for granting such relief.

---

Sources

1. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland case docket, Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Torque Parts LLC, 1:25-cv-07119.
2. Patent Nos. 10,123,456 and 10,654,321 (U.S. Patent Office).
3. Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839.
4. Supreme Court decisions: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).