Milwaukee Tool has filed another legal complaint against Klein Tools, this time alleging that Klein is infringing upon Milwaukee’s patented tape measure technology.
Specifically, Milwaukee says select Klein tape measures are infringing upon their US patent no. 11,656,067, which protects their tech concerning “tape measure with tape blade profile increasing tape standout.”
Basically, Milwaukee invented new methods of increasing standout in their tape measures, and is saying Klein is infringing upon their patent-protected inventions.
Advertisement
The legal complaint, 1:25-cv-04689, was filed on April 29, 2025.
Here are some excerpts from the legal filing:
Through relentless innovation and rigorous in-field research, Milwaukee Tool has developed tape measures that deliver unmatched reliability and precision, setting new standards in the industry. Milwaukee Tool’s tape measures are designed for ultimate reach and standout with the straightest and stiffest blades.
The ’067 Patent is generally directed to a tape measure that includes a tape measure blade with a profile shape that increases tape standout. The tape blade may have a flat width greater than or equal to 29 mm and less than 32 mm.
Klein Tools’ line of tape measures includes a number of products, which, as set forth below, infringe directly or indirectly, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’067 Patent.
(i) Tape Measure, 25-Foot Magnetic Double-Hook, model 9225
(ii) Tape Measure, 25-Foot Single-Hook Auto-Lock, model 9125AL
(iii) Tape Measure, 25-Foot Single Hook, model 9125Advertisement
On information and belief, the opportunity for additional discovery will likely result in the identification of additional Klein Tools tape measures that infringe at least one claim of the ’067 Patent.
The legal complaint discusses how Klein’s tape measure blade specifications fall within parameters protected by Milwaukee’s patent.
Looking at Milwaukee’s patent, which was granted in 2023, it does look like specific tape measure geometries and ratios are protected under intellectual property (IP) laws.
Milwaukee is seeking, among other things, a permanent injunction that prevents Klein from making, importing, or selling tape measures that infringe upon the ‘067 patent, as well as damages caused by sales of infringing products.
I am not a lawyer or expertly familiar with IP law, but it seems to me that Klein might have to either defend their products as being non-infringing, or argue that Milwaukee’s patent is invalid.
We have seen Klein launch tools that appear heavily inspired by Milwaukee designs and innovations – see New Klein Utility Knives Appear at Lowe’s – but I believe this is the first lawsuit alleging hand tool patent infringement. However, this isn’t the first complaint Milwaukee has made against Klein.
Milwaukee recently brought other legal action against Klein, alleging that Klein ModBox tool boxes are infringing upon 3 separate patents related to Milwaukee’s Packout tool storage system – see Tool Box Infringement Lawsuits Against Klein and ToughBuilt. For that case, an initial determination is expected in June 2025, with a final determination by late October 2025.
Generally speaking, companies and inventors that fail to defend their patents against infringement risk losing their patent rights and protections.
I say this because it would be fallacious to conclude that Klein is doing significant enough damage to Milwaukee to prompt this lawsuit over alleged patent infringement. Maybe they are, but it is my understanding that, when alleged infringement is discovered, neglecting to defend a patent can lead to weakened rights and protections, and that can lead to substantial losses down the road.
It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on these cases.
skfarmer
i call bs.
i don’t much care for the big m anyway but i would bet whatever shape the tape blade is in, some other tool or blade has used it before.
i get what a patent is for but every mfg tries to patent everything on the hopes it will stick.
S
I’d need to look back on my purchases, but I believe Klein was marketing this blade width before the patent was issued. I want to say they released the tape measure in question in 2021.
So they might very well have a leg to stand on as “prior art” if I understand the terminology right
Mateo
Everything Milwaukee claims in that chart is such a broad range I don’t see how it’ll hold up well. I’d assume a lot of tapes fall into those as well and predate the patent.
Granted I don’t like Milwaukee or Klein tapes at all. So maybe I’d prefer if Milwaukee kept their designs and style to themselves so it doesn’t creep into other brands I do like.
Stuart
From what I’ve seen, standout of 13′ or greater in a 25′ tape is still pretty modern.
How long have tape measures been around? If it was easy for brands to develop tape measures with longer and straighter standout, it would have been done sooner.
Why would any brand do any work to develop new products if competitors could simply copy it?
Competing sites have imitated and stolen ToolGuyd’s ideas and methods before, even copy-pasting content fragments at times. I’ve seen my typos copy/pasted verbatim. It sucks.
Anyway, we can’t make assumptions.
Fact: Milwaukee holds a patent that concerning tape measure blade profiles that improve standout.
Fact to be determined as true or false by the court: Klein is infringing upon Milwaukee’s patent.
Fact to be determined as true or false by the court: Milwaukee’s patent is valid.
IP law is so complex and specialized to where we as laymen can’t make assumptions or conclusions about whether Milwaukee’s claims are “too broad.” The fact is that they were granted and hold a patent, and to me this means the USPTO deemed the claims acceptable during review.
We really need lawyers well-versed in patents, IP, and infringement to provide informal opinions about the matter.
Given my limited understanding of how patent law works and what I’ve seen in the newly filed complaint, it does look like Klein could be infringing upon Milwaukee’s patent. If so, I’m sure there will be ways to get around it and develop a high standout tape. If Klein’s tapes do infringe, I think they’d argue that Milwaukee’s patent isn’t valid and perhaps shouldn’t have been granted by the USPTO in the first place.
IPLawyer
As an IP litigator, here’s what I can tell you without getting into all the specifics. The overall environment is a lot more patent owner friendly at the moment. There have been some changes at the USPTO that make invalidating patents through their procedures substantially more challenging. I wouldn’t be shocked if this is part of the motivation here. I’d also note that invalidating patents in Court has always been challenging. Ultimately, the jury gets to decide and patent law, as you note, is pretty complex and nuanced. That’s before you get to the part where a plaintiff gets to say–“the USPTO, the experts in patent law, looked at this and decided to grant it”
Finally, patent cases like this are very expensive. If you higher competent counsel, you are looking at a minimum of $3-5 million in fees even for a run-of-the-mill case. A serious competitor-to-competitor case, perhaps such as this, can be north of $10 million in legal fees when all is set and done. I’ve seen cases go north of $30 million when it involves multiple venues.
So why am I saying all of this? Because its a long way of saying this is probably going to settle.
Stuart
Thank you for sharing these insights!
David Funk
I will not support Big m With this kind of bs, I now will go but something from Klein…
Big Ricahrd
“If you higher competent counsel”
Would knowing the difference between ‘hire’ and ‘higher’ count as competent? Jk, jk, it was just funny that the typo occurred in the same sentence as your mention of the competency of a lawyer. I have no doubt you are more well spoken than I am.
My take is, Milwaukee is suing because they are all but guaranteed a settlement out of this. They may not truly believe Klein has infringed on their IP, but they also know Klein can’t easily – or cheaply – prove otherwise. Is that more or less what you were saying?
Prunus
You are right.
In China, some tool websites will also plagiarize your articles.
ToolFollower
Each row is broad but the product much contain EVERY one of those rows. That’s Milwaukees way of saying it has not been thought of before…. I say BS as well because one could still argue each of these variables are well known and not novel. But legal is legal.
To work around the patent only one variable needs to be off from claim 1. Or Klein can prove these variables are not uniquely new.
Jason T.
I don’t know a lot about patents, but who would grant a patent on a width measurement of a tape? I mean all tapes have to be of some width. Pretty sure every tape I own, the blade has a width. And Milwaukee gets a range of widths patented? Didn’t Stanley develop the Fat Max to have a wider blade so that it had better standout? I have nothing against Milwaukee or Klein but this one seems frivolous to me and a patent that should have never been granted.
Stuart
The patent (see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656067B2/ ) covers the blade profile comprising:
• an upper surface;
• a lower surface;
• an elongate metal core having a first thickness, T1, between 0.12 mm and 0.14 mm;
• a length between 15 feet and 40 feet;
• a flat width of 20 mm to 40 mm;
• a curved profile such that the upper surface of the elongate blade defines a concave surface and the lower surface defines a convex surface;
• a curved width, wherein the curved width is less than the flat width; and
• a curved height between 8.5 mm and 9.5 mm;
• wherein a ratio of the curved width to the flat width is between 0.6 and 0.8;
• wherein a ratio of curved height to flat width is greater than 0.285;
• wherein a standout distance of the elongate blade from the housing is greater than 150 inches; and…
It all contributes to very specific shapes with specific dimensions and curvature parameters. Here’s one of the artwork examples from the patent (link above):
Skylar
I don’t care enough to follow where this ends, but it seems like a valid thing to file a lawsuit over. If Milwaukee put in the R&D time/money to test all different types of tape measure widths, curvatures, materials, etc for the rigors of a jobsite in order to bring a solid product to market then it’s reasonable to try and protect that investment and the resulting product lines.
It might not be as glamorous as the newest cordless tools, but they did file a patent that looks to be more specific than I’ve ever cared to think about a tape. If another company copied or arrived at a design that’s similar enough to fall within the specs defined by the patent, then they have every right to sue and let the courts decide.
For the record, I didn’t like the Milwaukee tapes I tried so I’ve stuck with Stabila BM300s in all my bags. I don’t plan to try Klein tapes either.
Jared
Reading that, it sort of makes me wonder. E.g. if we’re talking about blade profiles an thicknesses – is that the sort of non-obvious “invention” normally associated with patents?
Seems like making a curvier U-profile would inherently make the tape stiffer. Thickness and likely width also make a difference.
Did Milwaukee actually “invent” something – or did they merely “…put in the R&D time/money to test all different types of tape measure widths, curvatures, materials” to find the best combination? I realize that costs money too, but that seems more like a trade secret and a patentable invention.
I.e. wouldn’t anyone trying to make a stiffer tape experiment with profile and thickness?
Farmerguy
So what did Milwaukee do different on their tape measures to be notably different than the rest in layman’s observation? Best I can tell with my limited knowledge is a wider blade and maybe a more pronounced arc to allow better standout.
Fowler
The patent isn’t for the width measurement, the parent is for the specific curve profile that Milwaukee uses
CMF
“Why would any brand do any work to develop new products if competitors could simply copy it?”
This is so true and the reason patents are so important.
At the same time, there are so many tape measure brands and models out there, I don’t see this being as distinctive or deserving the protection of a patent.
S
Sparkfun electronics had a few blog posts about exactly that years ago. The electronics market tends to serve as an accelerated viewpoint on the topic specifically because national IP And Global IP are drastically different, with many global IP’s being enforced by the nation the infringements are in–aka, if China makes a clone of Milwaukee’s tape measure, Milwaukee would need to sue them in china, who has historically been proven to side with their own nations versions, despite similarities.
https://news.sparkfun.com/963
The tape measure IP going on here is slightly different in that respect due to both companies being located in the same nation.
But sparkfun has had their own unintentional run-in’s with IP law
https://news.sparkfun.com/1428
IP law is literally like playing the game ‘Doctor’ while blindfolded, and plugged into a 120v outlet. Many times, there’s no way to know where the borders are until an example is made of someone
Robert
Yeah. We need a patent lawyer to educate us. Otherwise, it’s all conjecture.
OldDominionDIYer
The details of the dimensions seem indistinguishable to the average consumer I think. That doesn’t make them frivolous or not able to hold up in a patent court. Had the offending tape measures only shared one or two attributes Milwaukee probably wouldn’t have a case but Klein copied every attribute that contributes to the effectiveness of extended reach or standout, it’s a blatant copy and they should answer for it.
Aaron SD
Milwaukee is asserting that those dimensions are key to a long standout so they do matter in this case. They are integral to the design.
If Klein wasn’t claiming to have similar standout specs, then I don’t think they’d be sued.
OldDominionDIYer
My point is there’s attributes that every company that’s ever made a measuring tape share within this patent I. E. a flat tape width of between 20 and 40mm or a tape length between 14 and 40 feet. Those two attributes are on so many tape measures and Milwaukee isn’t suing those companies, so the issue is that Klein copied ALL of those attributes.
Greg
All the new Klein tools are almost identical to Milwaukee from the knifes , gloves , modular boxes it’s pretty obvious .
Patrick T
I have always been under the impression that a key component of a patent is if it is novel or not. It doesn’t take more than a grade school education to know that when you curve a piece of paper or put a crease in it, it will have better “stand out”. Most tape measures I own have a bit of a curve to them.
I’m sure there is some nuance in Milwaukee’s patent that makes their curved blade novel compared to all the other curved blades that came before it. As a layman, I can’t see how that is. Maybe their process for creating said curved blade is novel?
Stuart
If you take a banana, hold it at arm’s length, and then let go, what happens? Most people will know the answer, and they’ll know the answer by the time they can speak in complete sentences.
Now, how many people can quantify how long it will take to fall, factoring in their position on the earth, ambient air pressure, the shape of the banana, and any other influential parameters?
As I said in another comment, standout specs increased a few years ago. Different brands put a lot of effort into figuring out how to do it.
I can’t tell you how Milwaukee’s curvature profile differs from others. All we know is that they found specific curvatures and profiles to use in their products to improve standout, and they successfully patented it. Milwaukee is alleging that Klein copied their patented ideas, and it’ll be up to the court to sort things out.
Patrick T
I kind of take offense to this example. How is gravity relevant to whether or not a patent is novel? The outcome of the experiment is the same, regardless of the math applied. Or, ones knowledge of the math. That is, knowing all of the additional data does not make the result more novel. Unless nobody dropped a banana before they figured out the math that would allow them to do so. Perhaps then, bananas dropping would be a novel idea.
How does Milwaukee stand up in court (if this goes that far) and argue that their curved blade, one that is both concave on one side and convex on another and has a curved width that is narrower than the flat width, is novel compared to all the other curved blades (Which are also both concave and convex and narrower when curved than when flat). And then, turn around and say that Kleins isn’t novel?
In doing a quick review of the Milwaukee patent, they mention a compound curve (figure 6 in their application). That does seem like it could be novel. Much more novel than anything else listed above. And, maybe that part truly is novel among the countless other tape measure patents and prior art. If it is, they sure don’t spend much time on it in their patent application.
As skfarmer said above, this seems like a bunch of bs.
Stuart
There are plenty of things you just *know* without needing more than a grade school education. But to *understand* it takes a lot more effort. Knowing a banana will fall to the floor when you drop it is very different than understanding and describing its motion quantitatively.
Milwaukee worked to develop understanding of exactly what type of profile increases tape standout, established a presumably unique recipe, built products around it, and successfully applied for a patent. This gives them specific rights and protections.
Matt_T
Stuart,
Can you please point out these curves and profiles in the patent. I can’t find them. All I see is an extremely broad brush dimensional window.
Stuart
I linked to the Google Patents version above.
Or go to https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html and enter number 11656067 to see everything as filed.
I can’t link to the USPTO file directly, there’s a huge temporary request token string and stripping it away breaks the file. If you still can’t see it, I can email you the PDF.
ChuckR
huh. I have one of those Klein ones and while I do like it… it’s a heavy B.
JH
Yet Milwaukee rips Klein’s tool ideas and designs off all the time, Klein should counter sue
or you know what just focus on making good tools both of them
Stuart
If that were true, I’m sure they would. Maybe they missed something, can you point out specific examples?
Nathan
How long before klien sues on the pliers designs of Milwaukee. But interesting timing
Yadda
A law suit could eventually lead to discovery and eventually a merger or purchase.
Stuart
In this circumstance? I doubt it.
Milwaukee spent a ton of money not only opening a USA hand tools factory, but developing the know-how to build the tools. They have big plans.
Klein owns a safety gear company. Milwaukee already has safety gear and makes some of it in the USA.
Klein has been very successful in their expansion over the past few years. I wondered if they were gearing up for sale to a private equity firm, but it doesn’t smell like that. If Klein loses both infringement cases, that’s not a big deal, just a tiny road bump.
If Klein is found to be infringing, and again that’s an IF, and Milwaukee’s patent is found to be valid, they’ll probably either work out a settlement, licensing agreement, or there will be damages and the tapes will have to be modified before retuning to the market.
JoshtheFurnaceGuy
I find it funny that “Standout” is one of the specs in the patent. If a competitor copied every other spec, and failed to get 151″ of standout, their product wouldn’t infringe on the patent.
In short, both method and results must be copied to invite a suit.
To be fair to Milwaukee, they probably spent a large sum developing that proper curve. To be fair to Klein, they may not have told their Chinese factory to copy it.
S
See also, the entire “Elenore Mustang” drama.
Patent law can really suck. And a lot of it comes down to the nuances that most people skip over.
eddiesky
I don’t look at Klein for a tape measure. Nor am I the guy that flicks out a tape 10ft-16ft to measure lumber all day.
I’ve had Stanley and Fat Max for decades, along with Lufkin and now Fastcap (L/R info and fractions). I keep losing/misplacing tapes so now I get a chance to try Tajima tape measure.
But Pro Tool Review (Jan2025) rated Milwaukee as best overall.
It comes down to me, visibility (bright case, easy to read numbers). And I’m the “influencer” with my bros where I get something they never heard of, let them try it and then, if its a win, I never see it again. 🙁
I think if an IP needs to be defended, guess we’ll watch this patent case.
ElectroAtletico
I own tape measures from both. I’m not a fanboy of either, but I prefer the Klein tape measure AND they’re different.
Blocky
I think the patent granted was overly broad. I know the aim in getting a defensible patent is to make it as broad as possible, and well-rounded, kinda like a Milwaukee tape measure. That’s kinda the standout feature one might say.
James
This comment measures up. 🫡