Steve Barr v. Gallagher Staging Productions Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Steve Barr (California)
  • Defendant: Gallagher Staging & Productions, Inc., Gallagher Rental, Inc., Gallagher Manufacturing, Inc., Joseph Daniel Gallagher Sr., and Joseph Daniel Gallagher Jr. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Soderstrom Law PC
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00423, C.D. Cal., 03/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the residence of the Plaintiff and Defendants within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a welder, alleges that he is the true inventor of a patent for a "truss deadweight" that was improperly filed and patented by his former friend and business associate, and that the Defendants' "G-Block" product infringes this patent.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to heavy, ballast-like blocks used to anchor large metal truss structures for stages, lighting rigs, and other temporary installations in the live event and concert production industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint's primary focus is on an inventorship dispute. Plaintiff alleges he conceived of and reduced to practice the invention, while Defendant Joseph Gallagher Jr. merely acted as a "scrivener" and then improperly filed a patent application naming himself as the sole inventor. Plaintiff also alleges providing pre-suit notice of his inventorship and infringement claims to the Defendants in mid-2017, which did not result in cessation of the accused activities. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment to correct inventorship in addition to remedies for patent infringement.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,695,305 - "Truss Deadweight"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a deadweight that can provide adequate support for large, heavily loaded truss structures, particularly in adverse weather conditions, which existing ground supports allegedly failed to do ('305 Patent, col. 2:37-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a cubic deadweight structure designed to be filled with an aggregate material like cement for stability ('305 Patent, col. 2:49-52). It features forklift sleeves for easy positioning and plates on each face with specific apertures to allow for the attachment of standard-sized (e.g., 12" and 20.5") box trusses ('305 Patent, col. 2:54-56). The design includes large apertures to allow a user to reach inside the structure to bolt the trusses to the plates, as well as a leveling mechanism for use on uneven ground ('305 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a standardized, stable, and repositionable anchor point capable of securing large, modular truss systems from multiple angles, which is a foundational requirement for building large temporary structures for events ('305 Patent, col. 1:16-18, col. 2:30-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "each of the claims of the '305 patent" (Compl. ¶43). Independent claim 1 is the broadest.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A deadweight with truss attachment comprising:
  • a plurality of equally spaced vertical support members;
  • a plurality of fork lift sleeves positioned perpendicular to said vertical support members;
  • a plurality of enclosures positioned between each of said adjacent vertical support members;
  • a bottom plate, a top plate, a front plate, a rear plate, a left plate, and a right plate, arranged to form a closed interior area;
  • each plate (except the bottom) having a rectangular aperture for accessing the enclosures;
  • a plurality of bolt apertures on the top, front, rear, left, and right plates;
  • the top plate having a plurality of hand apertures for inserting bolts;
  • whereby the plates and enclosures are adapted to create an area capable of containing an aggregate material.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "G-Block" (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the G-Block is a product that Defendants rent and sell for "several thousand dollars each" and is one of their "most valuable and profitable products" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23). It is used in large-scale staging projects, with some customers using as many as 200 G-Blocks at a time or purchasing dozens for permanent installations (Compl. ¶23). The core allegation is that the G-Block is a direct physical embodiment of the design Plaintiff Barr invented and the '305 patent describes (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22, 48). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a formal claim-chart analysis. It pleads infringement in a conclusory manner, stating that "Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe each of the claims of the '305 patent" (Compl. ¶43) and that the "G-Block and its predecessor and successor products embody the '305 patent, which itself embodies Barr's new block design" (Compl. ¶48).

The central theory of infringement is not based on a technical breakdown of the accused product against the claims, but rather on the allegation that the G-Block is the invention. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Barr invented the device, Defendant Gallagher Jr. improperly patented it, and the Defendant companies now manufacture and sell it as the G-Block (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22, 26, 48). Therefore, if Plaintiff’s allegations of inventorship and ownership are proven, infringement of the patent by the G-Block is presented as a direct consequence.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Inventorship and Ownership: The threshold dispute is not claim scope but ownership. The court will first need to resolve the declaratory judgment counts (Counts One and Two) seeking to correct inventorship of the '305 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 25-40). The infringement claim (Count Three) is contingent on the Plaintiff first establishing his rights in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Assuming Plaintiff establishes ownership, a key factual question will be whether the G-Block, as sold or rented by Defendants, contains every element of an asserted claim. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the G-Block is "capable of containing an aggregate material" as claimed, or that it includes the specified "plurality of enclosures" for creating a "working area" as described in the patent? (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 48; ’305 Patent, col. 4:48-50, col. 3:6-9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "enclosures"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires "a plurality of enclosures positioned between each of said adjacent vertical support members." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes a specific function for these enclosures: "to create a working area... required for bolting a box truss" by "restricting the aggregate material" from filling that space ('305 Patent, col. 3:6-12). The existence and function of any corresponding structures in the G-Block will be a key factual issue for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. A party might argue any internal partition or wall that separates one area from another within the deadweight meets the plain meaning of "enclosure."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification ties the enclosures directly to the function of creating a bolt-able "working area" (41) by holding back aggregate material (30) from that specific area ('305 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 3:6-12). A party could argue that to be an "enclosure," a structure must perform this specific function.

• The Term: "aggregate material"

  • Context and Importance: The patent is directed to a "deadweight" and describes filling it with "cement, sand, concrete, or other heavy aggregate materials" to provide weight and stability ('305 Patent, col. 3:28-30). Claim 1 requires an area "capable of containing an aggregate material." The construction of this term may be relevant to whether infringement occurs if a G-Block is sold or used empty.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language only requires the capability of containing the material, not that it must be filled. The specification lists "cement, sand, concrete, or other heavy aggregate materials" as examples, suggesting the term is not limited to these specific substances ('305 Patent, col. 3:28-30).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term implies a loose, granular, or pourable substance, consistent with the examples provided, and might not cover, for example, solid metal weights placed inside the structure. The "maximum fill level" (29) also suggests a pourable substance ('305 Patent, col. 3:29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "instructing, directing, and/or requiring others, including... customers, purchasers, [and] users... to make, use, rent, lease, and/or sell the G-Block" (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 58).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff "informed Defendants in or around July or August 2017 of his claim to ownership of the '305 patent and of Defendants’ infringement" and that counsel for both parties met in August 2017 (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges that Defendants' continued infringing activities despite this notice were reckless, willful, wanton, and deliberate (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 59).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to be primarily an inventorship and ownership dispute masquerading as a patent infringement action. The infringement claims are entirely dependent on the resolution of the non-infringement counts.

1. A core issue will be one of inventorship and ownership: Can the Plaintiff provide clear and convincing evidence to support his claim that he is the sole and true inventor of the subject matter of the '305 patent, and that the named inventor, Joseph Gallagher Jr., made no inventive contribution? The outcome of the entire case hinges on this determination.
2. A secondary evidentiary question will be one of technical identity: Assuming the Plaintiff establishes ownership, does the accused "G-Block" product, as manufactured and sold, literally contain every element recited in an asserted claim of the '305 patent? The complaint's assertion that the product is a direct copy will need to be substantiated with element-by-element proof.
3. A final question will concern willfulness: If infringement is found, did the Defendants' continued commercialization of the G-Block after receiving explicit notice of Plaintiff's claims in August 2017 constitute willful conduct sufficient to justify enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?