Surti's Mud Flap Patent Suit Against Tramec Sloan Over Aero-Flap Mud Flaps Moves From Tennessee to the Western District of Michigan.

The case is Surti v. Tramec Sloan, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-02697 (W.D. Mich.). Tarun N. Surti, of Davidson County, Tennessee, filed the complaint without a lawyer in the Middle District of Tennessee on February 3, 2025, as No. 3:25-cv-00122, naming Fleet Engineers, Inc., which the complaint describes as a division of Tramec Sloan based in Muskegon, Michigan.

The patent and the accused mud flaps

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent RE44,755, titled Mud Flap and reissued February 11, 2014 from U.S. Patent 8,146,949, which issued April 3, 2012. Surti alleges he owns the patent. The complaint accuses three newer Aero-Flap brand mud flap part numbers and alleges that they infringe claim 19, which it quotes: a mudflap with laterally spaced channels on its front side whose rear walls have slots set away from the channel sidewalls, so that water flowing rearward along the sidewalls strikes the rear walls at the slot edges and is deflected.

The complaint pleads direct, willful, induced, and contributory infringement and a Tennessee tortious interference claim. It frames the action in part as a request for a declaratory judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable. It alleges that in earlier litigation between the parties in the Western District of Michigan, No. 1:12-cv-1143, Surti obtained a ruling on validity, a finding of infringement, and a damages award of $228,000, which the complaint says the Federal Circuit affirmed on August 15, 2023, and it alleges that the defendant has not paid that award. It also accuses the defendant, in general terms, of misconduct in that earlier case. It asks for a permanent injunction, damages including enhanced damages, payment of the earlier award, tortious interference damages, and fees, and demands a jury.

Transfer to Michigan

Tramec Sloan moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer (ECF No. 38). On August 25, 2026 the magistrate judge granted the alternative request and ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) (ECF No. 58). Surti objected, and on September 25, 2026 District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. overruled the objections, affirmed the transfer order, and preserved the pending motions for the transferee court (ECF No. 60).

The Michigan docket shows the case received October 5, 2026 and a case assignment review noting that it is related to No. 1:25-cv-374. The October 5 report to the Patent and Trademark Office lists RE44,755 and attaches a first amended complaint, which is not available. Judge Paul L. Maloney signed orders on October 15 and 16, 2026, including an order referring Surti's motion to compel to Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat. A motion to withdraw as attorney was filed October 21 and ruled on October 22, and a pro se application for electronic filing was filed October 27. The court ruled on a motion to extend the time to answer on October 28, and on November 2, 2026 it entered an order setting a Rule 16 scheduling conference.

What to watch next

Watch for the defendant's answer or motion, the Rule 16 scheduling conference, the ruling on the motion to compel, and any order addressing the related case. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.