Valdez v. Hamilton

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Edward Valdez and Wild West Security Shutters, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Daniel Hamilton and Gerbrig Vanderwoude (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vernon Litigation Group
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00234, M.D. Fla., 02/07/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendants' residence and regular and established physical place of business within the Middle District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Vanderwoude wrongfully filed a patent naming himself as the sole inventor of a flood panel barrier co-invented by Plaintiff Valdez, and that Defendants are now infringing that patent by selling duplicate products.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to removable flood barriers designed to protect building openings like doors and windows, a product with market significance in coastal regions prone to hurricanes and flooding.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint's patent infringement claim is contingent upon a preceding count seeking to correct the inventorship of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Valdez is an omitted co-inventor, and upon correction, they will gain legal ownership and the right to enforce the patent. The complaint also alleges that Defendant Vanderwoude sent a cease-and-desist letter before the patent application was filed.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,398,591 - "One Piece Flood Panel Barrier for Residential and Commercial Structures"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,398,591, "One Piece Flood Panel Barrier for Residential and Commercial Structures," issued August 26, 2025 (the "'591 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the increasing frequency and severity of flooding in coastal states like Florida, and notes that traditional flood prevention measures are often expensive, difficult to install, or impractical for the average homeowner '591 Patent, col. 1:15-51 The patent identifies a need for an "effective yet affordable flood mitigation solution" '591 Patent, col. 1:24-26
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a one-piece flood barrier designed to be releasably secured over building openings '591 Patent, abstract It consists of a rigid, lightweight panel (e.g., polycarbonate) surrounded by a support member assembly, typically made of aluminum u-channel material '591 Patent, col. 3:26-31; '591 Patent, col. 3:50-56 The assembly includes corner braces for reinforcement, sealing members to prevent water ingress, and at least one tension cable to increase structural rigidity '591 Patent, abstract; '591 Patent, col. 3:38-40 The design aims to create a durable, custom-fit, and easily deployable barrier '591 Patent, col. 1:52-63
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a customizable and reusable barrier that can be tailored to specific building dimensions, offering an alternative to generic or single-use flood defenses like sandbags '591 Patent, col. 2:17-24

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint's allegations center on inventorship of the "four corner brace members," which are recited in dependent claim 3 Compl. ¶¶15, 80 The infringement allegation itself is broad and does not specify claims Compl. ¶85 The analysis here focuses on the independent claim from which the disputed subject matter depends.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A flood barrier configured to be releasably secured to a structure.
  • A "one-piece panel member" made from a rigid material with perimeter edges.
  • A "support member assembly" coupled to the panel's perimeter edges, consisting of lower, upper, first lateral, and second lateral support members.
  • A "lower seal member" mounted to a bottom edge of the lower support member.
  • "First and second lateral sealing members" secured to the lateral support members.
  • "At least one cable member" operably coupled between the first and second lateral support members.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims but focuses factually on the subject matter of Claim 3.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "duplicate flood panels" that are made, used, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendants Compl. ¶85 The complaint alleges Defendant Hamilton established a company that "duplicated the flood panels that Wild West developed, manufactured, and co-invented" Compl. ¶20

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the structure or operation of the accused flood panels. It alleges they are "duplicate" products that "embody the claimed invention" Compl. ¶¶20, 85
• The complaint alleges that Defendant Hamilton began marketing and selling these products in the same regions and to the same customer base as Plaintiff Wild West Compl. ¶21

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the accused product against the patent claims, nor does it include or reference a claim chart. The central infringement allegation is a conclusory statement that Defendants sell "duplicate flood panels that embody the claimed invention" Compl. ¶85 This lack of specificity prevents the creation of a summary claim chart. The complaint's primary focus is on establishing inventorship rights as a prerequisite to an infringement action Compl. ¶¶80, 84 The complaint references a visual from the patent to support its inventorship allegations. This visual from Exhibit A, Figure 1, shows the overall barrier assembly, including the corner brace members (60) that Plaintiff Valdez claims to have co-invented '591 Patent, FIG. 1 Compl. ¶80

Identified Points of Contention

• Ownership and Standing: The threshold dispute is not over infringement but ownership. The infringement claim (Count VII) is expressly conditioned on Plaintiffs prevailing in their claim for correction of inventorship (Count VI) Compl. ¶84 A central question for the court will be whether Plaintiff Valdez's alleged contribution—the "four corner brace members"—rises to the level of co-inventorship for the claimed invention.
• Evidentiary Questions: Assuming Plaintiffs establish standing, the case will require evidence demonstrating that the accused "duplicate" products meet every limitation of an asserted claim. The complaint's current lack of technical detail on the accused products suggests that this will be a key area of discovery and proof.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"four corner brace members" (from dependent Claim 3)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the litigation because it identifies the specific feature that Plaintiff Valdez alleges he conceived Compl. ¶¶14-15, 80 The determination of whether Valdez is a co-inventor, and thus whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue for infringement, may depend on the scope and significance of this contribution relative to the invention as a whole.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language of Claim 3 itself is general, requiring only that the members be "mateably mounted to four corners of the support member assembly" '591 Patent, col. 7:27-29 This could support an interpretation covering various shapes and materials that perform a bracing function at the corners.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the "corner brace members 60 are triangular in shape" and "manufactured from a rigid planar material such as but not limited to metal sheet" '591 Patent, col. 5:10-15 Figure 1 of the patent also depicts these members as triangular plates '591 Patent, FIG. 1 A defendant may argue that the claim should be limited to this disclosed embodiment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The factual allegations focus on Defendants' direct acts of making and selling the accused products Compl. ¶85

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the infringement was willful Compl. ¶86 The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge that "Edward Valdez was a co-inventor and that they lacked authority to exploit the patent" Compl. ¶86 This ties the willfulness claim directly to the underlying inventorship dispute.

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

This case appears to be driven more by a dispute over inventorship and ownership than by a technical disagreement over claim scope. The resolution of the patent infringement count hinges on the outcome of the inventorship claim.

• A core issue will be one of inventorship and standing: Can Plaintiffs present sufficient corroborating evidence to prove that Edward Valdez contributed to the conception of the claimed invention, specifically the "corner brace members" recited in Claim 3? The answer will determine if the patent's named inventorship is corrected and, consequently, if Plaintiffs have the legal right to assert the patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement proof: Assuming Plaintiffs establish standing to sue, they will bear the burden of demonstrating that the accused "duplicate" panels practice every limitation of an asserted claim. The case will likely turn on the technical evidence presented to substantiate the complaint's currently conclusory infringement allegations.