Bauldree v. First Response Locator Systems Of America LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kenneth Bauldree (Florida)
  • Defendants: First Response Locator Systems of America, LLC (Georgia); Thomson Global Holdings, Inc. (Georgia); Terry S. Lacy (Georgia); Brian Thomson (Georgia); Angela Glynn (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-01612, M.D. Fla., 09/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, and conduct giving rise to the claims, occurred in or originated from the district. The residence of Defendant Angela Glynn within the district is also noted.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a named co-inventor on an early patent, alleges he was wrongfully omitted as a co-inventor on two subsequent patents filed by his business partners and seeks to have inventorship corrected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on technology for emergency locator and hazardous condition detection systems designed to help first responders identify a specific location and be notified of an emergency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint describes the formation of a business entity (First Response) to commercialize technology Plaintiff allegedly invented. Following the issuance of a patent naming Plaintiff as a co-inventor, the complaint alleges the business relationship deteriorated, leading Defendants to file and obtain two additional patents on related technology while excluding Plaintiff as an inventor.

Case Timeline

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

This report analyzes the two patents subject to the inventorship dispute ('269 and '365 Patents) and the foundational patent ('702 Patent) that provides context for the allegations.

U.S. Patent No. 9,928,702 - "First Response Locator System," issued March 27, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: First responders often spend critical time trying to locate the correct house or apartment unit during an emergency, particularly at night when addresses are poorly illuminated ('702 Patent, col. 1:32-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system featuring an "emergency locator unit" that can be placed at a conspicuous location, such as on a mailbox or building wall. This unit contains a lighting element and a speaker. A separate remote device allows a user to selectively activate the locator unit, causing it to flash lights of different colors (e.g., red for fire, blue for medical) and/or emit an audible sound to guide emergency personnel directly to the location ('702 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-col. 3:1). The system can also include a location module to transmit coordinates to a call center ('702 Patent, col. 2:18-24).
• Technical Importance: The system provides a conspicuous, multi-modal (visual and audible) beacon to reduce ambiguity and response times for emergency services arriving at a location (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not assert claims from this patent but references it as the intellectual property Plaintiff assigned to the joint business venture (Compl. ¶¶26, 53). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology and includes:
  • An emergency locator unit comprising a main body, a lighting unit, at least one lighting element, and an internal controller with a locator module for storing its location.
  • A remote operation device with user input members and a communication unit to transmit a signal to the locator unit.
  • A call center communicator, located in either the locator unit or the remote device, configured to transmit a request for assistance and the locator unit's location to a call center.

U.S. Patent No. 10,636,269 - "Hazardous Condition Detector with Wireless Communication Interface," issued April 28, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Commercially available smoke and carbon monoxide detectors typically require a person to manually contact first responders after an alarm sounds. While more complex, centrally monitored systems exist, they are often too costly for the average household ('269 Patent, col. 1:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a hazardous condition detector (e.g., for smoke, heat, or gas) containing a controller with a wireless interface. Upon detecting a hazard, the device not only sounds a local alarm but also automatically transmits a notification, including the specific type of hazard detected, to an external device like a smartphone and can simultaneously notify a third-party device or service ('269 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). The specification notes that the device may also communicate with other safety systems, such as a "FIRST RESPONSE LOCATOR SYSTEM" ('269 Patent, col. 4:46-49).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates the emergency notification process for residential hazard detectors, providing more specific information to users and potentially to third parties without relying on expensive monitoring services (Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges Plaintiff is a co-inventor of the "subject matter claimed" in the patent (Compl. ¶46). Independent claim 1 requires:
  • A main body configured to be secured to a wall or ceiling.
  • An alarm unit, a detection unit, a battery, and a controller with a wireless interface.
  • A mobile application for a processor-enabled device to communicate with the controller.
  • The controller is configured to monitor the battery's power level and selectively operate the alarm if the level is beneath a threshold.
  • The controller is also configured to communicate the type of hazardous condition to the mobile application and simultaneously transmit a notification containing that information to a third-party device.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D948,365 - "First Response Locator System," issued April 12, 2022

Technology Synopsis

The '365 Design Patent protects the ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The figures depict a circular, low-profile, domed device with vents, consistent in appearance with a modern smoke or hazardous condition detector, and is titled "First Response Locator System" ('365 Patent, Figs. 1-4).

Asserted Claims

The complaint alleges incorrect inventorship for the design itself (Compl. ¶46). Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the design embodies technology invented by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

This section is not applicable. The complaint does not allege patent infringement by a product or service; the core dispute is over inventorship of the '269 and '365 patents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This section is not applicable, as the complaint contains no allegations of patent infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms. The dispute centers on the conception of the claimed subject matter as a whole, rather than the construction of specific terms for the purpose of an infringement analysis.

VI. Analysis of Inventorship Dispute and Other Allegations

• Correction of Inventorship (35 U.S.C. § 256): The central cause of action seeks a declaratory judgment to correct inventorship on the '269 and '365 patents (the "Incorrect Inventor Patents") (Compl. ¶¶45-60). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Bauldree is a "true co-inventor" of the subject matter claimed in these patents (Compl. ¶46). It is alleged that the '269 Patent falsely lists Defendant Lacy as the sole inventor and the '365 Design Patent falsely lists Defendant Thomson as the sole inventor (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The basis for this claim is the allegation that these patents incorporate "technology that Plaintiff Bauldree invented" and that Defendants were aware of his inventive contributions when they filed the patent applications (Compl. ¶¶31-33). Plaintiff specifically alleges he "contributed to the conception" of the claimed technology and that Defendants intentionally omitted him from the applications (Compl. ¶¶51-52).
• Supporting Allegations: The complaint alleges a "scheme to cut Plaintiff out of the inventorship and ownership rights" (Compl. ¶63). As evidence of the deteriorating business relationship and Defendants' alleged consolidation of control over the intellectual property, the complaint includes an email from Defendant Lacy asserting his role as the "single elected 'Manager' for FRLS of America" and directing that all communications regarding patents be routed through him (Compl. Ex. E).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s determination of several key factual and legal questions.

• A primary issue will be one of corroboration of conception: Beyond his own declarations, what documentary proof, testimony from non-parties, or other evidence can Plaintiff provide to corroborate his alleged contribution to the conception of the specific inventions claimed in the '269 utility patent and the '365 design patent?
• A second key question will be the delineation of inventive contribution: Can the court distinguish the inventive contributions of Plaintiff Bauldree from those of the named inventors, Defendants Lacy and Thomson? This will require determining whether Plaintiff's alleged contributions—made in the context of the earlier '702 patent technology—were significant enough to qualify him as a joint inventor of the specific subject matter claimed in the subsequent patents, which add features such as automated third-party wireless notification and a particular ornamental design.
• Finally, a central factual question related to the non-patent claims is one of intent: Does the evidence support the allegation that the named inventors omitted Plaintiff Bauldree with deceptive intent as part of a deliberate "scheme," or was the omission a result of a good-faith belief that his contributions did not rise to the level of co-inventorship for the new subject matter?