DCT

2:25-cv-03618

Miller Mendel Inc v. Guardian Alliance Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03618, W.D. Okla., 05/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Oklahoma because Defendant Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. conducts substantial business and has substantial contact with the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff patent-holder alleges Defendant Guardian Alliance Technologies defamed it by publicly accusing it of committing fraud on the USPTO during the prosecution of its patent and seeks a declaratory judgment that no such inequitable conduct occurred.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves web-based software systems designed to manage and automate pre-employment background investigations, a process particularly relevant to law enforcement and government agencies.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a Third Amended Complaint, suggesting a prolonged dispute. The central conflict is not a direct claim of patent infringement but rather a dispute over the patentee's conduct during the patent's prosecution, which has manifested as a claim of defamation and a request for a declaratory judgment of no inequitable conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-04-06 ’188 Patent Priority Date
2018-08-07 ’188 Patent Issue Date
2019-08-22 Alleged Publication of Defamatory Website
2025-05-14 Third Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 - "Background Investigation Management Service"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188, "Background Investigation Management Service," issued August 7, 2018 (the "’188 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes traditional pre-employment background investigations, particularly in law enforcement, as inefficient processes that are heavily reliant on paper-based questionnaires and require significant manual effort, averaging 40 hours per applicant (’188 Patent, col. 1:20-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a web-based software system that automates and digitizes the background investigation process. The system allows an organization to create electronic documents (e.g., questionnaires) and send them to an applicant to be completed online. Based on the applicant's responses, such as identifying personal references, the system can then automatically generate and transmit further inquiries to those third-party sources, thereby centralizing and streamlining the collection of information (’188 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This automated approach aims to reduce the time and resources spent on investigations by minimizing hardcopy documents and creating a more efficient, electronically managed workflow for investigators (’188 Patent, col. 1:38-41; col. 4:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not assert any specific claims for infringement. However, to provide context for the technology central to the inequitable conduct dispute, independent claim 1 is summarized below.
  • Independent Claim 1: A method performed by a computing device to assist an investigator, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Receiving initial data identifying an applicant, position, organization, and investigator.
    • Storing a new applicant entry in system memory.
    • Transmitting a hyperlink to the applicant's email for viewing a set of electronic documents.
    • Receiving an electronic response from the applicant that includes information about a "reference source," including that source's email address.
    • Determining a "reference class" for the reference source (e.g., employer, relative).
    • Selecting a set of electronic documents tailored to that reference class.
    • Transmitting a hyperlink to the reference source's email for viewing the selected documents.
    • Receiving an electronic response from the reference source.
    • Storing the reference source's response and associating it with the applicant's entry.
    • Generating a suggested list of law enforcement agencies based on the applicant's residential address.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not accuse a product or service of patent infringement. The dispute centers on allegedly defamatory statements and actions by Defendant Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. ("GAT") (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that GAT published a website, "thetruthaboutmillermendel.com," which contained statements accusing Plaintiffs of committing fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office during the prosecution of the ’188 Patent (Compl. ¶¶10, 14, 18). These public statements are alleged to have been intended to damage Plaintiffs' business and competitiveness by inducing customers not to use Plaintiffs' product (Compl. ¶10). The complaint references an exhibit containing a copy of this website. This copy of a website is described as "Exhibit '1'" in the complaint (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not raise issues of claim construction for the purpose of an infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Defamation: The complaint alleges that GAT published false and defamatory statements accusing Plaintiffs of committing fraud on the USPTO during the prosecution of the ’188 Patent (Compl. ¶10). These statements were allegedly published on a website with the intent to harm Plaintiffs' business (Compl. ¶¶10, 14). Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute libel and were made negligently, recklessly, or with intentional disregard for the truth (Compl. ¶¶10-11).

  • Declaratory Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct: In direct response to GAT's public accusations, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that they have not committed fraud or inequitable conduct in relation to the ’188 Patent family (Compl. ¶¶17, 21; Prayer for Relief ¶1). The complaint asserts that an actual case or controversy exists because GAT's actions and statements have placed Plaintiffs in "reasonable apprehension of an imminent suit" concerning these fraud allegations (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of prosecution conduct: What specific actions or omissions during the prosecution of the '188 patent form the basis of the Defendant's fraud allegations, and does the evidence surrounding those actions meet the high legal standards of materiality and deceptive intent required to prove inequitable conduct?
  • A key question for the defamation claim will be one of truth and fault: Can Defendant GAT establish the substantial truth of its public statements regarding fraud on the USPTO, which serves as an absolute defense, or, failing that, can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the statements were made with the requisite level of fault?
  • An initial procedural question for the court may be justiciability: Do the Defendant's public accusations, in the context of a commercial dispute, create a controversy that is sufficiently immediate and real to support federal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' preemptive request for a declaratory judgment of no inequitable conduct?