Kelly A Barnett v. David Robson

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kelly A. Barnett (Oregon)
  • Defendant: E: Space Labs LLC, et al. (Oregon)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00419, D. Or., 04/27/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant E: Space Labs LLC being an Oregon business with its principal place of business in Bend, Oregon.
• Core Dispute: This is not a patent infringement action. The Plaintiff alleges negligence, misappropriation of trade secrets, and other civil claims against the Defendants, stemming from the alleged theft of computers, data, and physical patent-related documents from a technology incubator facility managed by the Defendants.
• Technical Context: The intellectual property at the center of the dispute relates to advanced orthopedic devices for equines, utilizing laminated textiles and integrated electronics for compression, support, and physiological monitoring.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a stalking order obtained by the Plaintiff against a member of the Defendant's facility, but no prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,398,880, "Plurality of lamination for soft tissue compression support, protection and bracing; intelligent textile for equine and equestrian sports or activities," issued July 26, 2016 (’880 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes inherent flaws in materials like neoprene, which are commonly used for equine leg wraps. These flaws include trapping heat that can damage soft tissues, causing allergic reactions, and bunching or migrating during movement, which can create harmful pressure points and reduce effectiveness (’880 Patent, col. 2:7-18; col. 3:6-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a laminated textile made of breathable, stretchable materials (such as polyurethane) that avoids the heat and fitment issues of prior art materials. Critically, this textile is designed as an "intelligent textile" or "e-textile" that incorporates sensors (e.g., acoustic, stretch, temperature), conductive fibers, a processor, and a wireless transmitter. This allows the device to not only provide physical support but also to actively monitor the physiological state of the underlying tissue and transmit that data for analysis, enabling non-destructive evaluation of tissue health in real time (’880 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-16; Fig. 9C).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to shift equine leg support from a passive protective device to an active diagnostic tool, potentially allowing for earlier detection of sub-clinical injuries and reducing the risk of catastrophic breakdowns (’880 Patent, col. 4:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not assert specific patent claims, as it is not an infringement suit. The patent's two independent claims are:
• Independent Claim 1: An equestrian soft tissue compression support comprising:
  • A soft tissue compression material.
  • A sheet of stretchable laminate material formed to wrap a portion of an equine appendage, itself comprising a stretchable polyurethane membrane and a bonded elastomeric material.
  • An intelligent textile integrated with the laminate, comprising conductive fibers, at least one sensor, a processor, and a wireless transmitter for sending data to an external receiver.
• Independent Claim 7: A method of monitoring a tissue health of an equine limb, comprising:
  • Providing the support apparatus of Claim 1.
  • Wrapping the limb with the support.
  • Measuring at least one parameter associated with the limb's motion or the support's effect using the intelligent textile.
  • Processing the measurement.
  • Transmitting the measurement via the wireless transmitter.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not allege patent infringement and therefore does not identify an accused product, method, or service. The central allegations relate to the theft of Plaintiff's intellectual property, including trade secrets, "written patent drafts and handwritten continuation patent claim set" (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement against any product or service. The Plaintiff alleges that in February 2018, she "discovered patent applications that published in January 2018 that were remarkably similar to her stolen trade secrets" (Compl. ¶3), but does not plead a count for patent infringement in this complaint. Accordingly, a claim chart analysis is not applicable.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not allege patent infringement, it provides no basis for an analysis of claim term construction. There is no dispute presented over the scope or meaning of any claim terms.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege direct, indirect, or willful patent infringement. The primary claims are for negligence, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil rights violations (Compl. p. 1). The complaint alleges that Defendants were "negligent in their heightened duty to protect and preserve trade secrets" (Compl. ¶19) and that they conspired to misappropriate this information after a theft occurred at their facility (Compl. ¶21).

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

The resolution of this case will not turn on traditional patent law questions of claim construction or infringement. Instead, the central issues are rooted in tort and trade secret law.

• A central issue will be one of duty and breach: Does a "membership-based technology incubator" (Compl. ¶5) owe its members a "heightened duty of care" (Compl. ¶6) to secure their intellectual property, and if so, did the Defendants' alleged failure to secure the premises constitute a breach of that duty?
• A second key question will be one of causation and damages: Can the Plaintiff establish a direct causal link between the Defendants' alleged negligence, the theft of her property, and a subsequent quantifiable economic loss, particularly concerning the value of unpatented "trade secrets, enabling processes and undisclosed inventions" (Compl. ¶2)?