Valdez v. Hamilton

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Edward Valdez and Wild West Security Shutters, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Daniel Hamilton and Gerbrig Vanderwoude (Florida)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Vernon Litigation Group
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00234, M.D. Fla., 03/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in the district and maintain a regular and established physical place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent related to flood barriers, and further ask the court to correct the patent's inventorship and declare it unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, stemming from a dispute among former business associates.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns modular, one-piece flood barriers designed to be temporarily installed over building openings like doors and windows to prevent water intrusion.
• Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from a business separation. Plaintiffs allege Defendant Vanderwoude, after the separation, obtained the patent-in-suit listing himself as sole inventor and sent cease-and-desist letters to Plaintiffs, asserting provisional patent rights before the patent was filed or issued.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,398,591 - "One Piece Flood Panel Barrier for Residential and Commercial Structures," issued August 26, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes an urgent need for affordable and effective flood mitigation solutions for homeowners, particularly in coastal areas like Florida, where traditional measures like sandbags or permanent barriers are often expensive, impractical, or ineffective against rising water levels ʼ591 Patent, col. 1:15-32 ʼ591 Patent, col. 1:44-51
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a custom-sized, one-piece flood barrier designed to be releasably secured over a building opening ʼ591 Patent, abstract It comprises a rigid panel (e.g., polycarbonate) surrounded by a support frame assembly ʼ591 Patent, col. 4:26-31 ʼ591 Patent, col. 4:38-43 To enhance structural integrity against water pressure, the design includes corner brace members and at least one tensioned steel cable member stretched horizontally across the panel between the lateral supports ʼ591 Patent, abstract ʼ591 Patent, col. 4:59-64 The barrier also incorporates sealing members to create a watertight fit and a one-way water removal valve to drain any water that accumulates between the barrier and the structure ʼ591 Patent, col. 5:29-37 ʼ591 Patent, col. 5:43-46
• Technical Importance: The claimed combination of a lightweight panel, a reinforcing frame, and a tension cable aims to provide a robust yet easily deployable and storable flood protection system for residential use ʼ591 Patent, col. 2:18-24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint makes non-infringement allegations against "at least one claim of the Patent-in-Suit" and specifically references "Claim 3" in its inventorship allegations Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶102 Independent claim 1 is the broadest claim.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A one-piece panel member with specified edges.
  • A support member assembly coupled to the panel's perimeter edges, consisting of lower, upper, first lateral, and second lateral support members.
  • A lower seal member mounted to the lower support member.
  • First and second lateral sealing members secured to the rear side of the lateral support members.
  • At least one cable member operably coupled between the first and second lateral support members.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The instrumentalities at issue are the "custom flood panels" developed, manufactured, and sold by Plaintiff Wild West Security Shutters, LLC Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶107

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Plaintiffs' products as "custom hurricane and security shutters" and "flood panels" offered for residential and commercial properties in Southwest Florida Compl. ¶11 The core of Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument is based on a specific design distinction: Plaintiffs affirmatively state that "no Wild West flood barrier has at least one cable member operably coupled to said first lateral support member and said second lateral support member" Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶99 Compl. ¶105 No further technical details or diagrams of the Plaintiffs' product are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its core factual allegation is that Plaintiffs' products are missing a required element of the patent's independent claim 1.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'591 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central dispute is a factual one: do the Plaintiffs' flood barrier products include a "cable member" that is "operably coupled" between the lateral supports, as those terms are understood in the patent? The complaint's direct denial sets up a straightforward factual inquiry.
  • Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a potential point of contention may involve claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. A question for the court could be whether any tensioning or support element on the Plaintiffs' products, even if not explicitly a "cable," performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed "cable member."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint's non-infringement theory focuses on the complete absence of a single claim element. Therefore, the construction of terms defining that element will be critical.

• The Term: "at least one cable member"
• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument Compl. ¶35 The definition of what constitutes a "cable member" under the patent will determine whether the Plaintiffs' products, which allegedly lack such a feature, can infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its presence or absence appears to be the primary basis for the infringement dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to narrowly define "cable member." A party could argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass various types of tensioning wires, ropes, or bands that provide structural rigidity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes the element as a "stainless steel cable" ʼ591 Patent, col. 4:61-62 A party could argue that this specific embodiment limits the term "cable member" to a metallic, multi-strand wire and excludes other types of tensioning elements like straps or solid rods.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint includes several patent-specific counts beyond non-infringement:

• Correction of Inventorship: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Edward Valdez is a true co-inventor of the patented system, having contributed to the conception of the "four corner brace members" recited in Claim 3 Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶102 It alleges Defendant Vanderwoude knowingly and willfully failed to name Valdez as a co-inventor on the patent application Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶103
• Invalidity Due to Inequitable Conduct: Based on the inventorship allegations, the complaint claims the patent is invalid and unenforceable. It alleges that Defendant Vanderwoude knew Valdez was a co-inventor but, with specific intent to deceive the USPTO, submitted a declaration identifying himself as the sole inventor Compl. ¶¶110-112 This alleged misrepresentation is asserted to be material to patentability Compl. ¶113

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

This case presents a multi-faceted dispute between former business associates that extends beyond a typical infringement analysis. The central questions for the court appear to be:

• A foundational issue will be one of inventorship: Is there sufficient evidence to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Plaintiff Valdez contributed to the conception of the invention as claimed, particularly the "four corner brace members" of Claim 3, such that he should be named a co-inventor?
• A consequential issue will be the patent's enforceability: If inventorship is found to be incorrect, did the named inventor omit the co-inventor with the specific intent to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, thereby rendering the '591 Patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct?
• A key factual question for the infringement analysis will be one of elemental presence: Do the Plaintiffs' flood barrier products contain a structure that meets the limitations of the "at least one cable member" element as recited in Claim 1 of the '591 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents?