Hruska v. Buchanan

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Christopher D. Hruska (Missouri)
  • Defendant: Walter R. Buchanan (Kansas) and Poseidon Ventures, LLC (Kansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kuckelman Torline Kirkland, LLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00460, W.D. Mo., 09/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Missouri because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including communications regarding the inventions, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a former business partner of the individual Defendant, seeks to be added as a named inventor on a portfolio of patents related to plasma reactor technology, alleging he made significant contributions to the conception of the claimed inventions but was wrongfully omitted.
• Technical Context: The technology involves non-thermal plasma reactors and associated power systems, primarily used for applications like water treatment, disinfection, and chemical modification by injecting ionized gas into liquids.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of collaboration between Plaintiff Hruska and Defendant Buchanan within a company called Eon Labs, LLC, which resulted in an initial set of co-invented patents. Following a business dispute and the dissolution of Eon Labs, Buchanan allegedly filed for and obtained a new family of patents based on Hruska's inventive concepts without naming him as an inventor. These patents were subsequently sold to a corporate buyer.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-12-26	Plaintiff Hruska and Defendant Buchanan become members of Eon Labs, LLC.
2009-06-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,120,073 (Patent 1) filed.
2013-03-01	U.S. Patent No. 9,287,800 (Patent 2) filed.
2013-01-01	Hruska allegedly introduces two-stage radial flow designs.
2014-02-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,394,189 (Patent 3) filed.
2014-04-01	Hruska allegedly presents the annular plasma venturi reactor concept.
2014-08-10	Hruska is allegedly locked out of the Eon laboratory.
2015-10-01	Earliest priority date for ’854, ’021, and ’982 Patents (Patents 7, 8, 9).
2015-10-08	Earliest priority date for ’968 Patent (Patent 5).
2015-12-09	Earliest priority date for ’300 Patent (Patent 6).
2015-12-18	Eon Labs, LLC is dissolved.
2016-03-15	U.S. Patent No. 9,906,118 (Patent 4) filed.
2016-10-07	'968 Patent (Patent 5) filed.
2016-12-07	'300 Patent (Patent 6) filed.
2018-07-03	'854 Patent (Patent 7) issued.
2018-08-14	'300 Patent (Patent 6) issued.
2019-01-22	'968 Patent (Patent 5) issued.
2021-01-05	'021 Patent (Patent 8) issued.
2021-05-28	Defendants allegedly sell patents, including Patents 5-12, to a corporate buyer.
2022-09-27	'982 Patent (Patent 9) issued.
2023-09-08	Amended Complaint filed.

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

This report analyzes the patents identified in the complaint for which Plaintiff seeks correction of inventorship. Full analysis is provided for the first two patents listed in the complaint's table of disputed patents.

U.S. Patent No. 10,187,968 - "Quasi-Resonant Plasma Voltage Generator" (Issued Jan. 22, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional plasma voltage generators as being limited in frequency (typically below 30 kHz), energy-inefficient, and lacking the flexibility to react to dynamic changes within the plasma reactor (e.g., changes in pressure or material flow) ( '968 Patent, col. 1:35-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for driving a plasma reactor that treats the reactor itself as a capacitive component in a "quasi-resonant" circuit. The system uses electronic feedback, including a phase detector and a zero-cross detector, to precisely time the switching of power to a transformer. This timing creates a resonant oscillation that builds voltage efficiently and allows the system to operate at higher frequencies (up to 5 MHz) while dynamically responding to the reactor's changing electrical characteristics ('968 Patent, col. 2:1-21, 5:1-13).
• Technical Importance: This control system allows for more energy-efficient plasma generation and enables finer control over the reaction, which is important for applications requiring specific chemical outcomes or adjustments to variable loads ('968 Patent, col. 2:10-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims Plaintiff contributed to, but the core of the patent is in its single independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1: A method for generating a plasma voltage, with key steps including:
  • Providing a power source, a transformer, a polarity-sensitive blocking diode, and a switch.
  • Connecting these components in a specific series arrangement.
  • Using a phase detector to detect a rising voltage in the transformer's secondary winding.
  • Using a zero-cross detection circuit connected to the switch.
  • Opening and closing the switch in response to the zero-cross detection to sustain a "quasi-resonant" oscillation.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert inventorship of dependent claims, but such a reservation is implicit in a § 256 action.

U.S. Patent No. 10,046,300 - "Membrane Plasma Reactor" (Issued Aug. 14, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that previous reactors that inject ionized gas into a liquid required creating a gas zone above the liquid. This limited the surface area for plasma generation and often required the liquid to be filtered to prevent contamination ('300 Patent, col. 1:49-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a reactor where a permeable or semi-permeable "ion membrane" separates the gas from the bulk liquid. An electric field ionizes the gas, and the resulting ions are driven through the membrane to enter and treat the liquid. This design significantly increases the potential surface area for ion injection and allows the reactor to be submerged directly in the liquid without requiring it to be flowing or heavily filtered ('300 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-32).
• Technical Importance: The membrane-based design provides a more robust and scalable method for treating liquids, including non-flowing bodies of water like pools or lakes, and is less susceptible to issues from particulates in the liquid ('300 Patent, col. 1:61-67, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims Plaintiff contributed to. The patent's core concept is captured in its first independent claim.
• Independent Claim 1: A plasma membrane reactor apparatus comprising:
  • A housing with a dielectrically isolated first electrode and a gas zone.
  • An "ion membrane" with one surface bounding the gas zone and the other external to the reactor.
  • A dielectric element positioned at the top of the gas zone, to which the first electrode is coupled.
  • An electric field generator including the first electrode and a spaced-apart second electrode, configured to generate an electric field between them.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert inventorship of dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,010,854 - "Plasma Reactor for Liquid and Gas" (Issued Jul. 3, 2018)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a "laminar flow" plasma reactor where a stream of gas is introduced to flow over and parallel to a stream of liquid. An electric field ionizes the gas directly above the liquid surface, allowing the resulting plasma to interact with the liquid as they flow together through the reactor chamber. This design aims to increase the area of plasma generation compared to earlier eductor-based designs ('854 Patent, Background; Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. The patent contains independent apparatus claim 1.
• Disputed Contribution: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Hruska conceived of the "two-stage radial plasma flow design" (Compl. ¶49), a concept that appears to align with the laminar flow reactor described in this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,882,021 - "Plasma Reactor for Liquid and Gas and Method of Use" (Issued Jan. 5, 2021)

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation-in-part of the '854 patent, this patent further details the laminar flow plasma reactor and adds method claims for its use. The technology focuses on creating a stable, high-pressure gas zone over a liquid flow path to facilitate various reactions, including disinfection, oxygenation, and nitrogen fixing ('021 Patent, Summary; col. 9:11-10:65).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. The patent contains independent apparatus claim 1 and method claims.
• Disputed Contribution: The complaint's allegations regarding Plaintiff Hruska's conception of the "two-stage radial plasma flow design" apply to the technology disclosed and claimed in this patent (Compl. ¶49, 59).

U.S. Patent No. 11,452,982 - "Reactor for Liquid and Gas and Method of Use" (Issued Sep. 27, 2022)

• Technology Synopsis: As a further continuation, this patent expands on the methods of using the laminar flow reactor. It specifically introduces the concept of adjusting the electrical field power level to control the ratio of molecular gas infusion versus ionic injection, allowing for finer control over the effluent's chemical properties ('982 Patent, col. 13:5-24; Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. The patent contains independent method claims 1 and 11.
• Disputed Contribution: The complaint's allegations regarding Plaintiff Hruska's conception of the underlying reactor design are foundational to the methods claimed in this patent (Compl. ¶49, 59).

III. Disputed Technology and Inventive Contributions

The subject of the dispute is not an infringing product but rather the inventorship of the core technologies claimed in the disputed patents. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Hruska conceived of and disclosed to Defendant Buchanan the fundamental concepts that were later patented without crediting Hruska (Compl. ¶26-29, 50).

The complaint identifies two primary inventive contributions made by Hruska:

• The "Two-Stage Radial Plasma Flow Design": This concept, allegedly developed by Hruska in 2013, involved "pre-ionization" and was presented as an improvement over earlier single-stage designs (Compl. ¶26). This contribution is alleged to be the basis for the '854, '021, and '982 patents, which describe a laminar flow reactor.
• The "Membrane Plasma Reactor": The complaint alleges Hruska made "significant contributions to the conception of... the membrane plasma reactor" (Compl. ¶49). This concept directly corresponds to the subject matter of the '300 patent.

The '968 patent, which claims a power supply method, is alleged to be part of the "unique power supply technology" developed to support these reactor designs (Compl. ¶25, 49).

IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

The central legal claim is that Plaintiff Hruska should be added as an inventor to the '968, '300, '854, '021, and '982 patents (and others in the family) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Compl. ¶63). To prevail, Hruska must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he contributed to the conception of the invention as claimed in at least one claim of each patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The case will center on what corroborating evidence Hruska can produce to support his claim of conception. This may include laboratory notebooks, emails, presentations, or witness testimony from the 2013-2014 period that predate the patents' priority dates (Compl. ¶26-29).
  • Scope Question: A key dispute will be whether Hruska's alleged contributions (e.g., a "two-stage design") map directly onto the specific limitations of the patents' claims. For example, does the "laminar flow" reactor claimed in the '854 patent embody the specific "two-stage radial plasma flow design" that Hruska alleges he conceived?
  • Legal Standard Question: The court will need to distinguish between contributions that constitute "conception"—the "formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention"—and contributions that are merely explaining well-known concepts or performing work under the direction of another, which do not confer inventorship status (Compl. ¶49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '968 Patent ("Quasi-Resonant Plasma Voltage Generator"):

• The Term: "detecting a rising voltage in the transformer secondary winding with a phase detector" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term is a central element of the claimed feedback control method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely involve whether Hruska conceived of this specific electronic control strategy for the power supply, or if his contributions were limited to the reactor hardware itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the phase detector's function generally as monitoring the voltage at a "monitored node" to determine the optimal time to turn the switch on ('968 Patent, col. 3:20-29). This could be argued to encompass any circuit that performs this timing function based on voltage phase.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 provides a specific circuit diagram for one embodiment of the phase detector 108, including specific resistors and capacitors ('968 Patent, FIG. 4). Defendants may argue the term is limited to this or structurally similar implementations.

For the '300 Patent ("Membrane Plasma Reactor"):

• The Term: "ion membrane" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This is the defining component of the claimed reactor. The core of the inventorship dispute for this patent will be whether Hruska conceived of using such a structure. Its definition is critical to mapping Hruska's alleged contribution to the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the membrane may be "permeable or semi-permeable" and that it "provides a path for ionized... gas to move from the gas zone to the liquid" ('300 Patent, col. 5:18-19, 33-36). This suggests a functional definition based on allowing ion passage.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention discusses using multiple layers, such as a porous, insulating Alumina layer and a TiO2 layer, to achieve specific electrical effects ('300 Patent, col. 3:1-6). A party could argue the term should be construed to require materials with such specific electrical or structural properties as disclosed in the embodiments.

VI. Related Allegations

• Exceptional Case Allegations: The complaint seeks a finding that this is an "exceptional" case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorney fees (Compl. ¶65(b)). This allegation is supported by other counts in the complaint, such as Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count II) and Fraud (Count III), which allege that Defendant Buchanan knowingly and intentionally filed patent applications based on Hruska's work while falsely executing inventor oaths declaring he was the sole inventor (Compl. ¶68, 78, 96).
• State Law and Other Federal Claims: The patent inventorship dispute is accompanied by claims for breach of contract related to a dissolution agreement (Count VIII) and misappropriation of trade secrets (Count VII), alleging Hruska's unpatented inventive work was a trade secret that was misappropriated by Defendants (Compl. ¶103, 105).

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

The resolution of this inventorship dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of the following central questions:

• A question of evidentiary weight: What corroborating factual evidence, such as dated documents or third-party testimony, can the Plaintiff provide to meet the high "clear and convincing" standard required to prove his contribution to the conception of the claimed inventions before the patents' effective filing dates?
• A question of claim scope: To what extent do the specific technical details of Plaintiff's alleged "two-stage" and "membrane" reactor concepts align with the actual limitations recited in the independent claims of the disputed patents? A mismatch between the alleged contribution and the invention as claimed could undermine the request for correction.
• A question of legal contribution: Can the Plaintiff establish that his contributions were to the "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention," thereby rising to the level of joint inventorship, as opposed to merely providing background knowledge, suggesting a desired result, or contributing to the reduction to practice of an idea already conceived by the Defendant?