Frontrunner Bus Group, Inc. filed Frontrunner Bus Group, Inc. v. Pareto Mobility, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-13504-RJW-KGA, in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 15, 2026. The caption identifies Frontrunner as formerly known as New England Wheels, Inc.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint identifies Pareto's Step-Free Bus as the accused product and alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 9,302,709; 9,988,102; and 10,723,394. It identifies the '709 patent as Lightweight Modular Structural Panel and the '102 and '394 patents as Modular Vehicle.
In paragraphs 26-27, Frontrunner alleges that Pareto advertises a bus built with lightweight sandwich panels and aluminum extrusions, with modular panels connected to one another and the chassis. These are the complaint's allegations about the accused construction, not findings by the court.
The former-insider allegations
The complaint's willfulness theory rests on Pareto's founder. Paragraph 6 alleges that Anjani Kumar, Pareto's founder and chief executive officer, is Frontrunner's former Vice President of Engineering, is named as an inventor on the asserted patents, and is estopped from challenging their validity because he assigned his rights as an inventor to Frontrunner for consideration. Paragraph 31 alleges that he led the original engineering team that developed the Frontrunner Bus, and paragraph 30 alleges that Pareto has had actual notice of the asserted patents through him. Paragraph 34 alleges that Pareto's website describes the Step-Free Bus as including a "[p]atented Sandwich panel + Al extrusion box structure" (Exhibit 5), and paragraph 35 alleges that Mr. Kumar's published application, US 2026/0021850, copies the Background section of the asserted patents. On those allegations, paragraph 6 calls the infringement "deliberate, intentional, and egregious" and invokes treble damages under 35 U.S.C. 284. These are allegations.
What relief is requested
The prayer for relief asks for a finding of direct infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 including treble damages for willful infringement and damages for any post-verdict infringement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs, an exceptional-case finding and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and a permanent injunction. None of that relief has been decided.
What to watch next
Watch Pareto's answer for its position on assignor estoppel, which the Supreme Court in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 594 U.S. 559 (2021), held applies only when the assignor's claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent. Also watch for Frontrunner's identification of asserted claims.