Mission Integrated Tech LLC v. Clemente

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Joshua R. Clemente, et al. (Texas, Montana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Werther & Mills, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01608, E.D. Va., 01/03/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the parties regularly transacted business in Fairfax County, Virginia.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that its former president and his son engaged in a scheme to misappropriate intellectual property, including by improperly filing for and obtaining a patent on a system developed for the Plaintiff, and now seeks transfer of that patent and damages for various business torts.
• Technical Context: The technology involves vehicle-mounted, articulating stairway systems designed to provide rapid access to elevated points, such as aircraft doors or buildings, for tactical, rescue, and military operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Joshua Clemente has filed a counterclaim for patent infringement against the Plaintiff, which provides the basis for federal jurisdiction. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for the patent-in-suit, issued after the complaint was filed, indicates that all claims have been cancelled except for dependent claim 9, significantly narrowing the scope of any potential infringement dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-10-07	Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC (MIT) is formed.
2015-01-28	Defendant Tim Clemente files a provisional patent application.
2018-11-20	Patent Priority Date (Provisional filed by Defendant Josh Clemente).
2019-11-19	Non-provisional application for '677 Patent filed.
2021-11-16	U.S. Patent No. 11,174,677 issues.
2024-01-03	Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint.
2025-05-07	Inter Partes Review Certificate for '677 Patent issues, cancelling all claims except Claim 9.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,174,677 - "Vehicle-Mounted Elevated Access System"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional vehicle-mounted access systems as suffering from drawbacks that include limited horizontal overhang, instability due to cantilevered structures subject to bending forces, and potential failure modes like buckling (’677 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle-mounted access system that aims to solve these problems through a novel mechanical arrangement. It uses a fixed base structure with track channels, upon which "movable hinge carriages" can travel (’677 Patent, col. 2:7-12). An inclinable access structure (e.g., a stairway or ramp) is pivotably connected to these carriages. The elevation is controlled by an actuator that moves the carriages, which in turn raises the structure via a system of lifting masts and tension elements, a design intended to keep key components in tension rather than compression (’677 Patent, col. 2:13-26; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The design's use of movable hinge points and tension-based actuation purports to improve horizontal reach and reduce the cantilevered loads that can cause instability in traditional designs (’677 Patent, col. 1:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not assert specific claims for infringement. However, a post-complaint IPR Certificate has cancelled all claims of the ’677 Patent except for dependent claim 9. Any infringement counterclaim by the Defendant would therefore be limited to this surviving claim.
• Claim 9 depends from cancelled independent claim 1. An assertion of claim 9 would require proof of infringement of all elements of claim 1, plus the additional limitation of claim 9.
• Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled, but incorporated into Claim 9):
  • a fixed base structure comprising a plurality of track channels;
  • a plurality of movable hinge carriages respectively on and configured to move along the plurality of track channels;
  • an inclinable access structure having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end of the inclinable access structure being pivotably connected to the plurality of movable hinge carriages;
  • a lifting mast having a proximal end and a distal end, connected to the access structure by forward tension elements and to the fixed base by rear tension elements; and
  • an actuator connected between the movable hinge carriages and the fixed base structure, configured to move the carriages to raise the access structure.
• Dependent Claim 9 (Surviving Claim):
  • The vehicle-mounted access system of claim 1, wherein the inclinable access structure further comprises a ramp.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Plaintiff's Articulating Rapid Entry System (“ARES”) (Compl. ¶2). While the complaint’s primary claims relate to ownership, the ARES system is the subject of the Defendant’s counterclaim for patent infringement (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the ARES as a "vehicle-mounted articulating stairway capable of delivering response forces quickly and precisely during crisis scenarios" (Compl. ¶2). It is identified as MIT’s "primary product" for law-enforcement, fire-rescue, and military customers (Compl. ¶¶2, 10).
• The complaint includes a photograph of the "current ARES model" mounted on a military-style vehicle. The photograph shows a multi-section, articulated stairway system in a partially elevated position, extending from a base frame on the vehicle chassis (Compl. ¶11). This visual evidence depicts a system consistent with the general technology field of the ’677 patent.

IV. Analysis of Patent-Related Allegations

The complaint does not allege patent infringement against the Defendants. The central allegations related to the ’677 Patent are centered on claims of improper inventorship and ownership.

• Theory of Misappropriation: The complaint alleges that Defendant Joshua Clemente, while performing engineering and design work for MIT, filed a patent application for the ARES system naming himself as the sole inventor and owner, without the knowledge or approval of MIT's majority member and without assigning the patent to MIT (Compl. ¶¶45, 60-61). This was allegedly part of a "common scheme to wrongfully establish control over MIT's confidential business information and intellectual property rights" (Compl. ¶57).
• Contractual Obligation to Assign: The complaint alleges that MIT's Operating Agreement stipulated that "all intellectual property...developed or improved by the LLC is owned at all times by the LLC" and that inventions made by Members related to ARES projects "shall belong exclusively to the LLC" (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that Defendant Joshua Clemente was supposed to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement that would have required assignment of any resulting IP to MIT (Compl. ¶¶23, 149).
• Allegations of Fraud: The complaint also alleges that Defendant Timothy Clemente made false representations to MIT that his son, Joshua, had signed agreements that would have protected MIT's IP rights and that he later presented altered patent assignment agreements for signature (Compl. ¶¶28, 100-102).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Inventorship/Ownership Question: The primary dispute is not one of infringement by MIT, but of ownership of the patent. The key question for the court will be whether the invention claimed in the ’677 Patent was conceived and reduced to practice under circumstances that created an obligation for Defendant Joshua Clemente to assign the patent to MIT.
  • Infringement Counterclaim Question: Regarding the infringement counterclaim mentioned in the complaint (Compl. ¶7), the cancellation of all claims except claim 9 is a major development. An infringement analysis would require determining if the ARES product, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. ¶11), practices every limitation of cancelled claim 1, including the "movable hinge carriages" and "tension elements," plus the specific limitation of claim 9, which requires the "inclinable access structure" to be a "ramp."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Based on the sole surviving claim (Claim 9, incorporating Claim 1), the following terms may be central to resolving the patent infringement counterclaim.

• The Term: "inclinable access structure"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core component that provides personnel access. Claim 1 recites this broad term, while surviving Claim 9 narrows it to "a ramp." The construction is critical because if the accused ARES system is determined to be a "stairway" and not a "ramp," it would not infringe the only surviving claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent explicitly contemplates both ramps and stairways as embodiments of the "inclinable access structure" (e.g., ’677 Patent, col. 4:13-15), yet the only surviving claim is one that specifies a ramp.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the general term "inclinable access structure" when describing the overall invention, suggesting it is a generic term for the elevating pathway (’677 Patent, col. 2:13, col. 4:8-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 10 (cancelled) separately claims a "plurality of stairs." The doctrine of claim differentiation could be argued to mean that the term "inclinable access structure" in Claim 1 was intended to be distinct from "stairs," potentially supporting an interpretation where it more readily covers a flat "ramp." The specific recitation of "a ramp" in Claim 9 provides a very strong basis for a narrow construction limited to ramp-like structures for that claim.

• The Term: "movable hinge carriages"

• Context and Importance: This is a key structural element of the claimed invention, distinguishing it from systems with a fixed pivot point. Proving infringement of Claim 9 requires proving the accused ARES system has this specific feature. The definition will determine whether the ARES system's articulation mechanism falls within the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a special definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the carriages as having "a plurality of bearings (e.g., wheels or sliding/bearing surfaces and plates)" that "move longitudinally along" track channels (’677 Patent, col. 4:62-65). A party could argue this description limits the term to wheeled or sliding mechanisms that travel along a defined track, as opposed to other forms of movable hinges.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful patent infringement by the Plaintiff.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful patent infringement by the Plaintiff.
• Allegations of Misappropriation and Unjust Enrichment: The complaint's patent-related allegations are rooted in other causes of action. It alleges that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by obtaining the ’677 patent, which rightfully belonged to MIT (Compl. ¶¶131-134), and that this action was part of a "business conspiracy" and a breach of fiduciary duty (Compl. ¶¶109, 125).

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

The resolution of this multifaceted dispute will likely depend on the court’s findings on two threshold issues, one contractual and one patent-specific.

• A primary issue will be one of ownership and obligation: Does the evidence of the parties' agreements and course of conduct establish that the invention claimed in the ’677 patent is the property of MIT, thereby creating an obligation for the named inventor, Joshua Clemente, to assign the patent to the company?
• A key question for the patent infringement counterclaim will be one of claim scope and evidence: Given that only dependent Claim 9 survived IPR, can the patentee prove that MIT's ARES system—described in the complaint as an articulating stairway—infringes a claim that requires not only all the complex mechanics of cancelled Claim 1 but also the specific limitation that the access structure be a ramp?