Disruptive Resources LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Disruptive Resources, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. (Delaware) and Mayday Security Solutions LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O & Kelly, O'Rourke
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00321, D. Del., 11/20/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendants are organized under Delaware law, maintain registered agents in the district, and have allegedly offered for sale and sold the Accused Products to customers in Delaware through e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ ballistic protective blinds and barriers infringe seven U.S. patents related to lightweight, flexible bulletproof barrier technology.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves deployable, lightweight, and aesthetically acceptable ballistic barriers for use in windows, doors, and other openings to provide protection from projectiles in residential, commercial, and vehicle applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex prior business relationship wherein Defendant Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. (BBP) was formed to commercialize Plaintiff's patented technology under a "Technology Agreement." Plaintiff alleges that after the business relationship soured and BBP claimed the agreement was terminated, BBP began selling the accused products, allegedly developed using Plaintiff's technology and proprietary information. The parties are also involved in a separate state court case in Arizona regarding the termination of the Technology Agreement. Additionally, one of the patents-in-suit, the '437 Patent, was the subject of a reexamination proceeding, with a certificate confirming the patentability of the asserted claim issued in August 2023.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-09-03	Priority Date for ’437, ’070, ’872, ’574, ’575, and '707 Patents
2019-11-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,473,437 Issues
2021-03-29	Plaintiff executes Technology Agreement with Astra Veda for BBP
2021-04-01	Priority Date for '905 Patent
2021-05-05	Defendant BBP is formed
2021-09-01	Astra Veda and BBP claim termination of Technology Agreement
2021-12-01	BBP's first claimed sale of Accused Products
2022-05-24	Arizona State Court Case filed by BBP against Plaintiff
2022-08-30	Mayday's predecessor announces distributor agreement with BBP
2023-01-24	U.S. Patent No. 11,561,070 Issues
2023-01-31	U.S. Patent No. 11,566,872 Issues
2023-08-28	Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 10,473,437 Granted
2023-09-11	GSX Conference where Defendants jointly marketed products
2023-11-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,828,574 Issues
2023-11-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,828,575 Issues
2024-01-23	U.S. Patent No. 11,879,707 Issues
2024-03-05	U.S. Patent No. 11,920,905 Issues
2024-11-20	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,473,437 - "Bullet Proof Blinds," issued November 12, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that conventional anti-ballistic systems for buildings are typically made of heavy metal plates, making them aesthetically undesirable and impractical for widespread residential or commercial use, while traditional window blinds offer no projectile protection (’437 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a blind system that integrates anti-ballistic functionality into a conventional window blind format. The core of the patented solution is a system comprising a blind made of lightweight anti-ballistic fabric that can be automatically deployed from a retracted state to a protective state. This deployment is triggered by an "actuator," which, in preferred embodiments, is part of a control system that responds to a "threatening event" detected by a sensor array (’437 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:42-51; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to make ballistic protection more accessible and practical by incorporating it into common architectural features without sacrificing aesthetics or requiring heavy structural modifications (’437 Patent, col. 1:29-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 24 (Compl. ¶61).
• Essential elements of Claim 24:
  • A mounting structure provided near the top of a window frame.
  • A blind configured to hang from the mounting structure, comprising a fabric of lightweight anti-ballistic material.
  • The blind is configured to have a "retracted state" allowing light transmission and a "protective state" where the blind drops into the window frame to stop projectiles.
  • An actuator configured to cause the change in state from the retracted to the protective state.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,561,070 - "Bullet Proof Barriers," issued January 24, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in fixed, rigid anti-ballistic barriers, noting that they are less effective at dissipating projectile energy than barriers that are allowed to move and deform upon impact (’070 Patent, col. 5:1-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a deployable barrier system comprising a "flexible laminated sheet" made from multiple layers of woven anti-ballistic material. The key technical feature is that the barrier is configured to hang freely when deployed, allowing it to "flex and move in response to impact from the ballistic object to absorb energy" (’070 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:56-64). This energy dissipation through motion is presented as a more effective means of protection than pure material resistance. The specification details that these layers can be secured together using methods including "stitching" (’070 Patent, col. 6:20-24).
• Technical Importance: This approach suggests that lighter, more flexible materials can achieve high levels of ballistic protection by converting a projectile's kinetic energy into motion and heat across the barrier's surface, rather than relying solely on material hardness or thickness (’070 Patent, col. 5:30-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A mounting structure for storing a deployable barrier in a retracted position.
  • The deployable barrier comprises a "plurality of layers of flexible contiguous sheets of woven anti-ballistic material" that are "secured together into a flexible laminated sheet."
  • A deployment mechanism configured to drop the barrier into a deployed position.
  • The barrier is configured to "flex and move in response to impact from the ballistic object to absorb energy."
  • The barrier is intended to protect against a "bullet deployed by a weapon."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,566,872 - "Bullet Proof Barriers," issued January 31, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of protecting an interior space using a flexible ballistic barrier. The method involves providing a barrier made of laminated lightweight anti-ballistic woven material, installing it in a building, and deploying it from a rolled (retracted) position to an extended (protective) position in response to a threat (’872 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶89).
• Accused Features: Defendants are accused of infringement by making, using, selling, and/or installing the Accused Products, which allegedly embody the claimed method of protection (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 11,828,574 - "Bullet Proof Barriers," issued November 28, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a ballistic barrier device that combines the "flex and move" concept with a "securing structure." The barrier is a flexible laminate designed to absorb energy through motion, but it also includes a structure to engage a portion of the bottom or side of the barrier when deployed, adding stability and preventing bypass (’574 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claims 1 and 19 are asserted (Compl. ¶103).
• Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be ballistic barriers that embody this combination of a flexible, deployable sheet and a securing mechanism (Compl. ¶103).

U.S. Patent No. 11,828,575 - "Bullet Proof Barriers," issued November 28, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims another method of protecting an interior space. The claimed method involves providing a flexible laminate barrier, installing it fixedly in a building (e.g., in a window or door frame), and deploying it from a retracted to an extended position where it engages a securing structure to protect the space (’575 Patent, Abstract; Claim 15).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶117).
• Accused Features: Defendants' actions in making, selling, and installing the Accused Products are alleged to constitute infringement of this claimed method (Compl. ¶117).

U.S. Patent No. 11,879,707 - "Bullet Proof Barriers," issued January 23, 2024

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of protecting an interior space using a flexible ballistic barrier that is fixedly mounted to a structure (e.g., a window or wall). The method emphasizes that the mounting permits the barrier to "move and/or flex" upon impact to absorb kinetic energy, even while being permanently installed (’707 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶131).
• Accused Features: The Accused Products, when sold and installed, are alleged to practice this method of providing a flexible, energy-absorbing barrier in a fixed installation (Compl. ¶131).

U.S. Patent No. 11,920,905 - "Bullet Proof Barriers Anti-Ballistic Laminate Manufacturing Method & Products," issued March 5, 2024

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to the method of manufacturing a flexible anti-ballistic laminate. The claimed process involves feeding continuous sheets of ballistic material into a bonding process, such as "stitch bonding," to form a continuous length of the flexible laminate product that can then be rolled (’905 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 29 is asserted (Compl. ¶145).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant BBP directly infringes by manufacturing the Accused Products using a process that includes making a "flexible laminate comprising a plurality of sheets sewed together" (Compl. ¶¶32, 145).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "LifeShield+ Products," which are described as "ballistic protective blinds and barriers" (Compl. ¶¶29, 50). These products are allegedly manufactured by Defendant BBP and marketed and sold by both BBP and Defendant Mayday (Compl. ¶¶31, 51).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are constructed from a "multi-layer flexible anti-ballistic laminate comprising a plurality of individual sheets of material sewed together" (Compl. ¶32). They are marketed as security products for buildings, including schools and other public entities (Compl. ¶50). The complaint includes a marketing image from the 2023 Global Security Exchange conference, which depicts a shared booth for "Mayday Security Solutions & Ballistic Barrier Products" promoting "Bullet Resistant Shades," suggesting a collaborative commercial effort (Compl. ¶52, p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

'437 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are blind systems that hang in a window frame and are made of a lightweight anti-ballistic fabric. It further alleges these products have a retracted state and a protective (deployed) state, and include an actuator to cause this change of state, thereby meeting the limitations of at least Claim 24 (Compl. ¶61).

'070 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The infringement theory for the ’070 Patent centers on the construction of the Accused Products. The complaint specifically alleges that BBP manufactures a "multi-layer flexible anti-ballistic laminate comprising a plurality of individual sheets of material sewed together" (Compl. ¶32). This construction is alleged to meet the Claim 1 limitation of a "plurality of layers of flexible contiguous sheets of woven anti-ballistic material... secured together into a flexible laminated sheet" (’070 Patent, col. 19:18-22). The complaint alleges these deployable barriers are designed to protect against bullets and implies they do so by flexing to absorb energy, mapping to the functional limitations of the claim (Compl. ¶¶29, 75).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the ’437 Patent, a central question may be the scope of the term "actuator configured to cause a change in state." The dispute may focus on whether this term requires an automated or powered mechanism, as described in the patent's preferred embodiments, or if it can read on a manual deployment mechanism that may be part of the Accused Products.
• Technical Questions: For the ’070 Patent, a key technical question for the court will be whether a multi-layer fabric assembly that is "sewed together" falls within the scope of a "flexible laminated sheet." Additionally, demonstrating that the accused product actually performs the function of "flex[ing] and mov[ing] in response to impact... to absorb energy" may require evidentiary support, such as physical testing or expert analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "actuator" (from ’437 Patent, Claim 24)

• Context and Importance: The definition of "actuator" is critical because it may determine the type of deployment mechanism required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification emphasizes automated systems with sensors and controllers, which could suggest a narrower definition than the plain language might otherwise allow (’437 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 24 does not qualify "actuator" with terms like "automated," "electronic," or "powered," potentially supporting a construction that covers any mechanism, including manual ones, that causes the blind to deploy.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract, summary, and detailed description consistently frame the invention in the context of an automated system that responds to a detected threat, using a "control system" and "sensing system" to trigger the transition (’437 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-54). This context could be used to argue that an "actuator" in this patent is implicitly part of such an automated system.

The Term: "flexible laminated sheet" (from ’070 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’070 Patent appears to hinge on whether the Accused Products, which are allegedly "sewed together" (Compl. ¶32), meet the definition of a "laminated sheet." This term's construction will be central to determining literal infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’070 Patent family provides explicit support for a broad definition. The patent states that securing layers together can be achieved through "glue, heat bonding, stitching, quilting, or other means" (’070 Patent, col. 6:20-24). Another patent in the family explicitly claims a method where layers are secured "using stitching" (’872 Patent, Claim 4). This intrinsic evidence suggests that the patentee considered "stitching" to be a method of creating the claimed "laminated sheet."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "laminate" implies bonding with adhesive, heat, or pressure, and that "stitching" is a distinct mechanical fastening method. They could argue that by listing "stitching" alongside "glue" and "heat bonding," the patent treats them as alternatives, not synonyms, raising the question of whether a sheet that is only stitched together is properly "laminated."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants allegedly instructing customers on the installation and use of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶65-66, 79-80). Knowledge is alleged based on the prior Technology Agreement, which gave BBP access to Plaintiff's patent portfolio, and the ongoing Arizona litigation (Compl. ¶¶33, 39, 46).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged for all patents. The claim is primarily based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents through the prior business and licensing relationship involving key individuals, and through the Arizona state court proceedings where the patents were identified (Compl. ¶¶35, 39, 46, 73, 87). Continued infringement after the filing of the complaint is also cited as a basis for willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "laminated sheet," as used across the patents-in-suit, be construed to cover a multi-layer fabric product whose layers are "sewed together," as the accused product is alleged to be constructed? The patents' own specifications, which expressly mention "stitching" as a method of securing layers, may heavily influence this determination.
• A central evidentiary question will be the impact of the prior business relationship: to what extent does the evidence show that Defendant BBP's accused technology was derived from the patents, trade secrets, and know-how disclosed under the prior Technology Agreement? The answer will be critical not only for the trade secret claim but also for establishing the knowledge and intent required for indirect and willful infringement.
• A key technical question will be one of functional performance: for claims requiring the barrier to "flex and move... to absorb energy," the case may turn on factual evidence demonstrating whether the accused products actually operate in this manner and achieve the claimed functional result, potentially requiring expert testimony and comparative testing.