Safe Haven Wildlife Removal Property Management Experts LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Safe Haven Wildlife Removal and Property Management Experts, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC, d/b/a Meridian Bird Removal, Inc. (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fitzgerald Litigation
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00525, M.D.N.C., 09/22/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina because Defendant allegedly committed acts of infringement there and purposefully directed activities to the state, citing job postings and a service area map on Defendant's website.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s bird removal services infringe three patents related to systems and methods for humanely capturing animals, such as birds, inside large enclosed structures.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized equipment and processes for safely removing nuisance wildlife from commercial spaces like warehouses and retail stores, where food safety and humane treatment are significant concerns.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses pre-suit correspondence in which Plaintiff notified Defendant of infringement of the ’374 Patent. Defendant’s response did not directly contest infringement but instead appeared to assert an ownership claim to the patent based on the inventor’s prior work as an independent contractor for Defendant.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-05-19	Patent Priority Date ('374, '’108', '’683' Patents)
2016-05-26	Inventor assigned patents to Safe Haven
2018-11-04	Earliest date of alleged infringing activity (social media post)
2019-04-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,251,374 Issued
2019-05-21	Safe Haven sent notice letter to Meridian regarding '374 Patent
2019-07-19	Meridian responded to notice letter, raising ownership issue
2020-08-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,729,108 Issued
2021-07-20	U.S. Patent No. 11,064,683 Issued
2021-09-17	Safe Haven employees witnessed alleged infringement in Sarasota, FL
2021-09-22	Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,251,374 - “Animal Relocation System and Method,” issued April 9, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty of removing birds from large commercial structures like “big box stores” and warehouses, where they can pose health risks by contaminating food and medicine. (’374 Patent, col. 1:15-34). Traditional capture techniques are described as time-consuming, potentially harmful to the animal, and inefficient in large, open spaces with high ceilings and roosting areas. (’374 Patent, col. 1:35-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a combination of nets to systematically reduce the area in which a bird can fly, thereby funneling it toward capture. It combines a "perimeter net system" to section off a large portion of the building with an interior "trapping net system". An operator uses a "flushing device" (e.g., a bag on a pole) to guide the bird from its roost, through the perimeter nets, and into the smaller trapping net area. (’374 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:19-34). Figure 2 illustrates a "2:3:5" setup with two perimeter nets and three trapping nets in a large facility. (’374 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide a more humane, efficient, and predictable method for bird removal compared to prior art methods that were less systematic. (’374 Patent, col. 2:1-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 6.
• Essential elements of claim 6 include:
  • An animal relocation system for relocating an animal in a structure
  • a perimeter net
  • a trapping net wherein the trapping net comprises a first trapping net, a second trapping net, and a third trapping net
  • a flushing device, wherein the flushing device is used to direct the animal into the trapping net
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 7 and reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 72).

U.S. Patent No. 10,729,108 - “Animal Relocation System and Method,” issued August 4, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent ’374 Patent: the inefficient and potentially inhumane removal of birds from large indoor structures. (’108 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: The ’108 Patent claims methods and systems for animal relocation that emphasize specific equipment and setup configurations. The claims focus on features such as positioning nets "at or near a ceiling," using "telescoping poles" for deployment, and attaching those poles to building structures like rafters or beams. (’108 Patent, col. 12:41-51, col. 12:26-36). The core concept remains the use of perimeter and trapping nets with a flushing device to guide the animal. (’108 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This patent appears to protect specific implementations and equipment combinations for deploying the general method described in the parent patent family. (’108 Patent, col. 4:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 17.
• Essential elements of claim 1 (method) include:
  • installing a bird relocation system comprising at least one perimeter net, at least one trapping net, and at least one flushing device
  • positioning a top edge of the net(s) at or near a ceiling
  • flushing the animal toward the net(s)
• Essential elements of claim 11 (system) include:
  • at least one perimeter net
  • at least one trapping net
  • at least one flushing device
  • at least one telescoping pole
  • wherein the net(s) are attached to the telescoping pole
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶ 93, 121).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,064,683

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,064,683, “Animal Relocation System and Method,” issued July 20, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’683 Patent, also in the same family, claims a bird relocation system focused on the deployment apparatus. It describes a system with at least one perimeter net adapted for positioning near a ceiling, where the net is attached to at least one telescoping pole that itself includes a "means of attachment to a rafter or beam proximal to the ceiling." (’683 Patent, col. 6:7-16).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and several dependent claims. (Compl. ¶138).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's workers who were witnessed using a system of perimeter nets attached to telescoping poles, which were in turn attached to rafters or beams inside a Lowe's store. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56, 140).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant Meridian's bird removal service, which is marketed under names including the "'Bird-N-Free' capture system and process." (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Meridian's service infringes by using the patented methods and systems to capture birds from indoor facilities. (Compl. ¶38). The infringement allegations are primarily based on direct observation of Meridian workers capturing a bird at a Lowe's store in Sarasota, Florida. (Compl. ¶48).
• During that observation, the workers allegedly used a "perimeter net," specifically a "mist net," attached to "two telescopic poles" that were secured to rafters "proximal to the ceiling." (Compl. ¶¶ 54-56). The complaint includes a still image from a video showing a deployed mist perimeter net, poles, a pulley, and a hook used by the workers. (Compl. ¶53, Exhibit 25). The workers also allegedly used a "flushing device," described as a plastic bag referred to as the "scary bag man," to chase the bird toward the net. (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 64). A photograph from social media is provided, allegedly showing a Meridian technician with a captured bird, with a telescoping pole attached to a net and the building's perimeter structure visible in the background. (Compl. ¶42, Exhibit 10).
• The complaint positions Meridian as a direct competitor that provides an "advantage to Safe Haven in the marketplace." (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’374 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a perimeter net	Meridian uses a perimeter net system, specifically a "mist net," to section off areas within a facility.	¶¶ 38, 55	col. 4:19-21
a trapping net wherein the trapping net comprises a first trapping net, a second trapping net, and a third trapping net	The complaint alleges Meridian uses trapping nets, but concedes none were observed in use in the Sarasota incident. It relies on a separate social media photograph (Exhibit 12) as evidence that Meridian "does, in fact, use trapping nets" at other times.	¶¶ 69, 73	col. 4:21-25
a flushing device, wherein the flushing device is used to direct the animal into the trapping net	Meridian workers used a flushing device (a plastic bag on a pole) to "chase the bird toward the perimeter net."	¶¶ 58, 64	col. 4:60-65

’108 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
at least one perimeter net	Meridian workers used a perimeter mist net.	¶55	col. 4:30-31
at least one trapping net	The complaint alleges Meridian uses trapping nets, but concedes none were observed in use in the Sarasota incident. It relies on a separate social media photograph (Exhibit 12) as evidence of use.	¶109	col. 4:32-33
at least one flushing device	Meridian workers used a flushing device to chase the bird.	¶64	col. 5:4-10
at least one telescoping pole	Meridian workers used two telescoping poles.	¶54	col. 4:8-12
wherein either or both of the at least one perimeter net and the at least one trapping net are attached to at least one telescoping pole	The workers attached the perimeter net to the telescoping poles.	¶61	col. 4:8-12

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A primary point of dispute may be the "trapping net" limitation, which is present in the asserted independent claims of both the ’374 and ’108 patents. The complaint concedes that the primary instance of observed infringement did not involve trapping nets. (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 95). The case for this element appears to rely on separate evidence (a photograph) whose context and ability to demonstrate a complete infringing system may be challenged.
• Technical Question: Claim 6 of the ’374 patent requires the "flushing device" to be "used to direct the animal into the trapping net." The complaint alleges the device was used to chase the bird "toward the perimeter net." (Compl. ¶64). This raises the question of whether chasing a bird toward one type of net satisfies a claim limitation that specifies a different type of net, particularly in an instance where the specified net was allegedly not present.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "trapping net"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the complaint's central, witnessed example of infringement allegedly lacks this component. (Compl. ¶69). The infringement case for claims requiring this element hinges on proving Meridian uses a "trapping net" at other times. Furthermore, claim 6 of the ’374 Patent requires a specific configuration of "a first trapping net, a second trapping net, and a third trapping net," making the term's definition foundational to the infringement analysis for that patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the trapping net system as reducing "the space the animal...can traverse while the capture attempt is occurring." (’374 Patent, col. 4:22-25). A party could argue that any net used to shrink the capture area, distinct from the main perimeter, could qualify as a "trapping net".
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently distinguishes between the "perimeter net system (12)" and the "trapping net system (14)" as two separate components of the overall "relocation system (10)." (’374 Patent, col. 4:10-14). Specific embodiments, like the "2:3:5" system, explicitly call for "three nets for the trapping net system." (’374 Patent, col. 4:28-30). This suggests "trapping net" may be construed to require a distinct, multi-component system separate from the perimeter net.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Meridian allegedly training and instructing its employees and independent contractors to use the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 85). The contributory infringement allegation is based on Meridian supplying its contractors with "information about the process contained in the" patents with the intention that they would use it to infringe. (Compl. ¶89).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. For the ’374 Patent, knowledge is claimed from a May 21, 2019 notice letter. (Compl. ¶86). For the ’108 and ’683 patents, knowledge is alleged to have begun on their respective issue dates. (Compl. ¶¶ 131, 165). The complaint further alleges that upon learning of the patents, Meridian "altered its processes to directly violate" them. (Compl. ¶79).

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

• A threshold question, preceding any technical analysis, will be one of patent ownership. The complaint indicates Defendant previously raised a claim of ownership based on the inventor's former status as an independent contractor, an issue the court may need to resolve before considering infringement.
• A central evidentiary issue will be whether Plaintiff can prove Defendant's accused service meets the "trapping net" limitation, which is required by key asserted claims. Given the complaint's admission that its primary observational evidence lacks this element, the case may turn on the strength of secondary evidence, such as social media photographs, to prove that a complete, infringing system is used by the Defendant.
• The case also raises a question of functional scope: does the alleged act of using a flushing device to direct a bird "toward the perimeter net" satisfy the claim limitation of directing the animal "into the trapping net" (’374 Patent, Claim 6), especially in a scenario where no trapping net was observed? The resolution will depend on how the court construes the full claim phrase in the context of the patent's specification.