DCT

4:23-cv-00460

Hruska v. Buchanan

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00460, W.D. Mo., 06/30/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Missouri because a substantial part of the events, including communications regarding the inventions and alleged misrepresentations, occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges he was improperly omitted as an inventor on a portfolio of patents related to plasma reactor technology that were filed by his former business partners and their company.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves non-thermal plasma reactors used to treat or modify liquids and gases, with applications in areas such as water treatment and chemical processing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of collaboration within a company called Eon Labs, LLC, followed by a dispute where Plaintiff Hruska was allegedly excluded from the business and his inventive concepts for a "two-stage radial plasma flow design" and "membrane plasma reactor" were used to file a new patent family (Patents 5-12) that did not name him as an inventor.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-12-26 Eon Labs, LLC is formed by Plaintiff Hruska. (Compl. ¶59)
2009-06-05 Patent 1 filed. (Compl. ¶13)
2013-03-01 Patent 2 filed. (Compl. ¶13)
2014-04-01 Plaintiff Hruska allegedly presents "annular plasma venturi reactor" concept. (Compl. ¶22)
2014-08-10 Plaintiff Hruska allegedly locked out of Eon laboratory. (Compl. ¶27)
2015-10-01 Provisional application for Patent 7 filed. (Compl. ¶36, fn. 6; '854' Patent)
2015-10-08 Provisional application for Patent 5 filed. (Compl. ¶36, fn. 4; '968' Patent)
2015-12-09 Provisional application for Patent 6 filed. (Compl. ¶36, fn. 5; '300' Patent)
2015-12-18 Eon Labs, LLC is dissolved. (Compl. ¶32)
2016-09-27 Patent 7 filed. (Compl. ¶36)
2016-10-07 Patent 5 filed. (Compl. ¶36)
2016-12-07 Patent 6 filed. (Compl. ¶36)
2018-07-03 Patent 7 issues as U.S. 10,010,854. (Compl. ¶36)
2018-07-03 Patent 8 filed. (Compl. ¶36)
2018-08-14 Patent 6 issues as U.S. 10,046,300. (Compl. ¶36)
2018-11-30 Patent 9 filed. (Compl. ¶36)
2019-01-22 Patent 5 issues as U.S. 10,187,968. (Compl. ¶36)
2021-01-05 Patent 8 issues as U.S. 10,882,021. (Compl. ¶36)
2021-05-28 Defendant Poseidon Ventures allegedly sells Patents 1-12. (Compl. ¶45)
2022-09-27 Patent 9 issues as U.S. 11,452,982. (Compl. ¶36)
2023-06-30 Complaint filed. (Compl. p. 1)

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,187,968 - Quasi-Resonant Plasma Voltage Generator

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional plasma voltage generators as being limited in frequency, energy inefficient, and unable to adjust to the dynamic physical conditions within a plasma reactor (e.g., changes in pressure, temperature, or material flow) (Compl. ¶41; '968 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a plasma voltage generator that treats the plasma reactor itself as a capacitive electrical component in a "quasi-resonant" circuit. This design allows the system to store and reuse energy, increasing efficiency, and enables the generator to sense and react to changing conditions within the reactor by monitoring the circuit's electrical characteristics ('968 Patent, col. 2:1-21, fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach suggests a more sophisticated and efficient method for powering plasma reactors, potentially allowing for finer control over the plasma-generation process and better performance in real-world applications with variable loads ('968 Patent, col. 2:10-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges Hruska contributed to the conception of the subject matter of the claims in Patents 5-12, but does not specify claims (Compl. ¶41). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • Providing an electrical power source and a transformer.
    • Connecting the transformer to the power source.
    • Providing a polarity-sensitive device (e.g., a diode).
    • Providing a switch in series with the transformer and the polarity-sensitive device.
    • Detecting a rising voltage in the transformer winding with a phase detector.
    • Providing a zero-cross detection circuit connected to the switch.
    • Opening and closing the switch in response to a detected zero-cross condition.

U.S. Patent No. 10,046,300 - Membrane Plasma Reactor

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that prior reactor designs could limit the plasma generation area and required the liquid being treated to be filtered to remove particles and contaminants, which could interfere with the process ('300 Patent, col. 1:55-60). The complaint alleges Hruska conceived of the "membrane plasma reactor" (Compl. ¶41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a reactor that uses a permeable or semi-permeable ion membrane to separate a gas zone from the liquid being treated. An electric field ionizes the gas, and the resulting ions pass through the membrane to enter and treat the liquid. This architecture allows the liquid to be treated without direct contact with the primary plasma generation zone, increasing the potential surface area for ion injection ('300 Patent, col. 2:8-17, fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This membrane-based design could allow for the treatment of unfiltered liquids and potentially enable more robust and scalable plasma reactor systems for applications like water purification ('300 Patent, col. 1:60-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A housing including a dielectrically isolated first electrode and an internal gas zone.
    • An ion membrane with one surface bounding the gas zone and a second surface external to the reactor.
    • A dielectric element positioned at the top of the gas zone, with the first electrode coupled to its first surface.
    • An electric field generator including the first electrode and a spaced-apart second electrode, configured to generate an electric field between them.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,010,854 - Plasma Reactor for Liquid and Gas

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a "laminar flow" plasma reactor. It is designed to create a stable, layered flow where a gas is passed over the surface of a liquid within a reaction chamber, allowing an electric field to ionize the gas directly above and in contact with the liquid to facilitate treatment or chemical reactions ('854 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-33). The complaint alleges this patent relates to Hruska's "two-stage radial plasma flow design" (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes a general allegation covering all claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: This is an inventorship action, not an infringement action. The dispute centers on Plaintiff's alleged conception of the reactor design itself (Compl. ¶41).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,882,021 - Plasma Reactor for Liquid and Gas and Method of Use

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation-in-part of the '854 patent, this patent further details the laminar flow plasma reactor system and methods of its use. It describes configurations for ionic injection, gas dissociation, and liquid re-formation, and presents data related to the reactor's performance in applications like water treatment and nitrogen fixing ('021' Patent, Abstract; col. 9:4-10:4).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes a general allegation covering all claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The dispute centers on Plaintiff's alleged conception of the reactor design and its methods of use (Compl. ¶41).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,452,982 - Reactor for Liquid and Gas and Method of Use

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation-in-part of the '021 patent and further refines the plasma reactor technology. It introduces an alternative embodiment for infusing gaseous particles into a liquid at power levels lower than what is required to create a plasma, allowing for accelerated diffusion of gases like oxygen into a liquid without full ionization ('982' Patent, Abstract; col.2:50-56).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes a general allegation covering all claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The dispute centers on Plaintiff's alleged conception of the reactor design and its alternative modes of operation (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

This is a declaratory judgment action for correction of inventorship, not a patent infringement suit. Therefore, there is no "Accused Instrumentality" in the traditional sense. The dispute centers on the origination of the inventive concepts embodied in the patents themselves.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No infringement is alleged in the complaint. This section is not applicable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not the central issue in this inventorship dispute. This section is not applicable.

VI. Analysis of Inventorship Dispute and Related Allegations

The core of the lawsuit is Plaintiff Hruska’s claim to be a true and rightful inventor of the technology claimed in U.S. Patents 5-12. The complaint seeks to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Compl. ¶55).

  • Basis of Inventorship Claim: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Hruska conceived of the key technologies that were later patented by the Defendants. Specifically, Hruska claims to have developed and presented concepts for a "two-stage radial flow" design, an "annular plasma venturi reactor," methods of "pre-ionization," and a "membrane plasma reactor" during his time as a partner at Eon Labs (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 41). The complaint alleges that after Hruska was locked out of the company laboratory in August 2014, Defendant Buchanan used Hruska's work to file a series of provisional and non-provisional patent applications, starting in October 2015, without naming Hruska as an inventor (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 36, 60-61). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
  • Related Allegations: The inventorship claim is supported by several other counts alleging misconduct by the Defendants.
    • Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraud: The complaint alleges that as partners in Eon Labs, the parties were in a fiduciary relationship, which Defendant Buchanan breached by misappropriating Hruska's inventive work for his own benefit (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60). It further alleges that Defendants made false representations to obtain Hruska's work and filed false inventor oaths with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 70).
    • Misappropriation and Conversion: The suit includes claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion, alleging that Hruska's unpatented designs were valuable, secret information that Defendants wrongfully took and monetized through the subsequent patenting and sale of the technology portfolio (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 83, 94-95). The complaint alleges the portfolio was sold for up to $22.5 million (Compl. ¶45).
    • Breach of Contract: A separate claim alleges that Defendants failed to pay royalties owed to Hruska under the Eon Labs dissolution agreement for patents on which he was a named inventor (Patents 2-4) (Compl. ¶¶ 105-107).

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

This case does not turn on claim construction or infringement but on the factual history of the invention's creation. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core legal and factual issue will be one of conception and corroboration: What admissible and corroborated evidence can Plaintiff Hruska produce to demonstrate that he formed a "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention," as claimed in Patents 5-12, before the work of the named inventors?
  • A related evidentiary question will be one of contribution: Assuming Hruska can prove conception of the general designs, the court will need to determine whether his contribution was significant enough to make him a joint inventor of the specific subject matter recited in the various patent claims, which may have been refined or altered by the named inventors.
  • A key question for the fraud, fiduciary duty, and potential attorneys' fees claims will be one of deceptive intent: Did the failure to name Hruska as an inventor result from a good-faith disagreement over the legal standards of inventorship, or does the evidence show a deliberate and fraudulent scheme to misappropriate his intellectual property as the complaint alleges?