IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LOUISVILLE DIVISION
BRANDON BEAVERS
an individual;

BEAVERS HOOF CARE SERVICES, LLC
a Kentucky Limited Liability Company

EXTREME CHUTE COMPANY, LLC
a Kentucky Limited Liability Company

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.:

v. J URY DEMANDED

RILEY BUILT, INC.
a Texas Corporation

&

WILLIAM S. RILEY
an individual

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR
PATENT NON-INFRINGMENT AND DEFAMATION
Plaintiffs Brandon Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care Services, LLC, and Extreme Chute
Company, LLC, file this complaint for declaratory judgment relief of patent non-infringement
and defamation against Defendants Riley Built, Inc., and William S. Riley, and allege as
follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Brandon Beavers (Beavers) is an individual residing at 1415 Toad
Mattingly Road, Lebanon, KY 40033.
2. Plaintiff Beavers Hoof Care Services, LLC (Beavers Hoof Care) is a limited
- 1 -
3:14-CV-539-TBR
liability company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with its principle
place of business at 1415 Toad Mattingly Road, Lebanon, KY 40033.
3. Plaintiff Extreme Chute Company, LLC, (Extreme Chute) is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with its principle place
of business at 1415 Toad Mattingly Road, Lebanon, KY 40033.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Riley Built Inc., or alternatively Riley-
Built, Inc. (Riley Built), is a Texas Corporation with its corporate headquarters at 7802 Genoa
Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79424, and its principal place of business at 16611 FM 179, Wolfforth,
TX, 79382.
5. William S. Riley (Riley) is an individual and, upon information and belief, is
one of the owners and corporate officers of Riley Built. Riley is the inventor and presumptive
owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,669,332. Upon information and belief, William S. Riley is a resident
of Sulphur Springs, Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 . This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338, 2201 and 2202.
7. Venue properly exists in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. 454.210 because, on information and belief, Riley Built transacts business in
Kentucky and solicits business in this judicial district. Defendants Riley and Riley Built own a
United States Patent, and Defendants Riley and Riley Built have alleged that Plaintiffs Beavers,
Beavers Hoof Care and Extreme Chute have conducted activities within this judicial district that
constitute patent infringement. Additionally, Defendants Riley and Riley Built have hired an
investigator to investigate the operations of Plaintiffs Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care, and Extreme
- 2 -
Chute within this judicial district, and this investigator has placed threatening phone calls and
threatened physical violence against the owners and employees of Extreme Chutes, such acts
presumably to occur within this judicial district.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) because
plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different U.S. states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 excluding interest and costs.
10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim of defamation under
28 U.S.C. 1367 because plaintiffs claims are so related to the claims within the Courts
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the
U.S. Constitution. Specifically, defendants claims of patent infringement, as described in detail
below, are arguably defamatory under Kentucky law and also give rise to the legitimate fear of a
suit for patent infringement, thus warranting the request for declaratory relief.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Plaintiffs bring this suit for a declaratory judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. This action also arises under the Patent Laws of
the United States, 35 USC 1 et seq.
12. Plaintiff Brandon Beavers (Beavers) is the President and Owner of Plaintiff
Beavers Hoof Care Services (Beavers Hoof Care) and Plaintiff Extreme Chute Company
(Extreme Chute). Beavers is a cattle hoof trimmer, and operates his hoof trimming business
under the name of Beavers Hoof Care Services. Beavers Hoof Care Services has a web site and a
Facebook page to advertise and promote its business. Beavers has invented a new hoof trimming
chute, and has applied for a provisional patent application for his new hoof trimming chute (the
New Chute.) Beavers incorporated Plaintiff Extreme Chute for the purpose of manufacturing,
marketing, selling, and servicing the new hoof trimming chute. Beavers is in the process of
- 3 -
preparing a utility patent application for the New Chute. A copy of the Provisional Application
for the New Chute is attached at Exhibit 1.
13. Plaintiff Extreme Chute manufactures, promotes, markets, offers for sale and sells
cattle hoof trimming chutes. The hooves of cattle grow continuously and must be trimmed
periodically to maintain the health of the animal. A cattle hoof trimming chute allows a hoof
trimmer to immobilize the animal to facilitate the trimming of the hooves.
14. J ohn Cordrey (Cordrey) is the Sales and marketing Manager for Plaintiff
Extreme Chute. Cordrey is also the owner of Mid State Hoof Trimming, a company located in
Bancroft, Wisconsin, which is in the business of trimming cattle hooves. Mid State Hoof
Trimming has a Facebook page to advertise Cordreys hoof trimming services, and is also used
by Cordrey to advertise chutes sold by Plaintiff Extreme Chute.
15. Defendant Riley is the inventor and owner of United States Patent, No. 5,669,332.
(the 332 patent.) The 332 patent is entitled Portable Chute for Immobilizing an Animal, and
describes a chute for immobilizing cattle for the purposes of trimming their hooves. The 332
patent was issued on September 23, 1997, and is based on an application filed on February 20,
1996. This filed application is a continuation in part application, and claims priority on an
application filed on J anuary 3, 1995. A copy of the 332 patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
16. The 332 patent describes a cattle hoof trimming chute with a rear entrance gate, a
front exit gate, and two side walls for restraining an animal within the cage. The 332 patent has
16 claims, two independent claims (claims 1 and 15) and fourteen dependant claims. The
independent claims are typically the broadest claims, meaning they cover the broadest
embodiment of the invention. Both claim 1 and claim 15 are drawn to a chute for immobilizing
an animal having a cage with a front gate with means for opening, closing and latching the front
- 4 -
gate, a rear gate, with means for opening, closing, and latching the rear gate, means for rotating
the chute, and means for operating the opening and closing features of the two gates and the
rotational feature of the cage. Both of the broadest claims define the front gate as having a
surface which tapers inwardly. Essentially this inwardly tapered surface will force the animal in
the chute to move its head toward the opening in the front gate. This feature is described in detail
in the written specifications in Column 2, lines 37 to 43, and column 5, lines 37 to 43. Both of
the broadest claims further state that the means for operating the movable features of the chute
are operable from the rear of the chute. The broadest claims also include a pivotably mounted
stanchion for restraining the head of the cattle.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Riley Built was formed to manufacture,
market, sell and service the hoof trimming chutes disclosed in the 332 patent. Upon information
and belief, Defendant Riley has assigned his patent rights to Defendant Riley Built. Upon
information and belief Defendant Riley Built has been selling these chutes from the Lubbock
Texas location since at least 1999.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendants Riley and Riley Built became aware of
Brandon Beavers and Plaintiff Extreme Chute in early 2014, when Beavers was discussing his
design for a new chute with Cordrey and a number of other hoof trimmers, and posting
information about the new chutes on the Beavers Hoof Care Facebook page.
19. On February 25, 2014, Defendant Riley, through his attorney H. Grady Terrill, of
Craig, Terrill, Hale & Grantham, LLP, sent Beavers of Beavers Hoof Care and Cordrey of Mid
State Hoof Trimming a cease and desist letter. (The Feb 25 cease and desist letter.) A copy of
the letter is attached as Exhibit 3. The Feb 25 cease and desist letter asserts that the chutes under
development are so similar that they appear to violate each and every claim under the Riley
- 5 -
patent. The Feb 25 cease and desist letter demanded that Beavers provide Mr. Terrill all
information related to chutes currently under development, change his website, cease
manufacture of the current design of the chute, destroy any similar chutes, and provide evidence
that the chutes have been destroyed. The Feb 25 cease and desist letter demanded that Beavers
and Cordrey comply within 10 days or we will file suite in Federal Court.
20. Upon information and belief, immediately after Mr. Terrill sent the cease and
desist letter to Beavers and Cordrey, Defendant Riley posted the letter to his own Facebook
Page, and posted copies of the letter to the Facebook pages of both Mid State Hoof Trimming
and Beavers Hoof Care. Defendant Riley also posted a second letter, and open letter to hoof
trimmers dated February 28, 2014, stating the Beavers and Cordrey were infringing his patent.
Copies of both Facebook postings are attached as Exhibit 4, and a copy of the open letter is
attached at Exhibit 5.
21. On March 5, 2014, Beavers, by and through the undersigned attorney, sent a reply
letter to Mr. Terrill responding to the allegations in the Feb. 25 cease and desist letter. (The
reply letter.) A copy of the reply letter is attached as Exhibit 6.The reply letter points out that
the broadest claims of the 332 patent require that the front gate must have a tapered portion to
direct the cows head through the front gate. The reply letter included pictures showing that the
allegedly infringing Beavers chute has a straight or flat front gate, does not include the tapered
front gate, and therefore does not infringe the 332 patent.
22. Mr. Terrill acknowledged receipt of the reply letter by e-mail, but never replied in
substance. E-mail attached as Exhibit 7.
23. On February 25 a man telephoned Cordrey and said that he was following him,
and would bankrupt him for infringing Rileys patent. Upon information and belief this man
- 6 -
was an investigator hired by Defendants Riley and Riley Built. The Feb 25 cease and desist letter
specifically noted that Riley had hired an investor to investigate the matter, and it is believed that
the man who telephoned Cordrey was the investigator hired by Riley. This supposition is
supported by the fact that at least one of the calls to Cordrey came from a phone with an 806 area
code, which includes Lubbock Texas. The same man called Cordrey on February 28 and March
6. The same man called Beavers and threatened to bankrupt him and to stomp a mud hole in
your ass. A number of these calls were in the form of voice mail messages, and the messages
have been preserved.
24. One March 7, the undersigned attorney sent an e-mail to Mr. Terrill informing
him of these actions and asking him to tell his client to stop. Mr. Terrill responded that he would
check into the matter, but never responded further. E-mail exchange attached as Exhibit 8.
25. Upon information and belief, on or around May 24, 2014, Riley created a fake
Facebook page under the name of J ohn Courdrey, and posted comments on both the Mid State
Hoof Trimming and Extreme Chute Company Facebook pages. Copies of the comments posted
to Mid State Hoof Trimming are attached as Exhibit 9. The comments are written as if they were
written by Cordrey. One of the comments states that if it wasnt for Bills expertise, we
wouldnt have anything to steal! Another says We have to have lawyers involved because we
are violating a patented product and will probably lose our case . In the meantime Im going to
remain a cocky little thief rubbing it in Rileys face!!
26. On May 30, an unidentified man began calling Cordrey and informing him that
he and Mr. Riley would see Beavers and Cordrey in jail, bankrupt, and that they would hurt
Beavers and Cordreys family.
27. On J uly 4, a Mark Larson visited the fabrication shop where Extreme Chute is
- 7 -
manufacturing the New Chute. Upon information and belief Mark Larson is the sales manager
and part owner of Riley Built. Mark Larson told the employees of the fabrication shop that the
New Chute is infringing the 332 patent. He told the employees that they should stop building
the New Chute or they would be sued. He also said that Beavers and Cordrey were thieves and
infringers.
28. Riley Built sells a number of products related to hoof trimming. One of the
products sold by Riley Built is a biodegradable leg wrap, called a Q. Pad, that is used to cover
medication that is placed on an animals leg during the hoof trimming process. Riley Built marks
the Q. Pad as Pat. Pending. Upon information and belief, neither Riley nor Riley Built have
filed a patent on this product, and therefore do not have a patent pending. A photograph of the Q.
Pad is attached as Exhibit 10.
29. In light of Defendant Riley and Riley Builts specific assertions of infringement in
the cease and desist letter, refusal to respond to the good faith reply letter, telephone calls from
Rileys agent, and posts to Facebook by Defendant Riley that Extreme Chute and its employees
and owner are infringing the 332 patent, an actual and substantial controversy now exists
between Plaintiff Extreme Chute and Defendants Riley and Riley Built with respect to the 332
patent.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE 332 PATENT
30. Plaintiffs Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care and Extreme Chute incorporate by
reference paragraphs 1 29 above as if fully set forth herein.
31. This is a declaratory judgment action under the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 USC 1 et seq., and the Declaratory J udgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. As an
- 8 -
actual justiciable controversy exists by way of the credible threat of immediate litigation and
demand to cease and desist the production of the Chute, as well as repeated accusations of
infringement, Extreme Chute seeks relief from this Court.
32. The New Chute hoof trimming chute contains significant differences from the
hoof trimming chute disclosed in the 332 patent. Specifically, the Extreme Chute does not
include a tapered front gate, or its equivalents, as required by independent claims 1 and 15. The
New Chute also does not position its controlling means at the rear of the chute as required by
independent claims 1 and 15. The New Chute also does not have a pivotably mounted stanchion,
or its equivalents, for restraining the head of the animal in the chute. Other differences between
the New Chute and the 332 patent will be shown in detail at trial.
33. Because of the differences between the New Chute and the 332 patent, plaintiffs
Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care and Extreme Chute have not directly infringed, induced the
infringement of, nor has been a contributory infringer, of any of the claims of the 332 patent.
COUNT II
NON INFRINGMENT DUE TO PATENT MISUSE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
34. Plaintiffs Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care and Extreme Chute incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 33 above as if fully set forth herein.
35. The 332 patent is not enforceable because of the patent misuse and inequitable
conduct of the Defendants Riley and Riley Built.
36. A patent will be deemed unenforceable if the patent owner engages in conduct
that seeks to extend scope of the patent, or to use the patent for unfair commercial advantage.
See, e.g. Princo Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Defendants threats in telephone calls, Facebook postings, meritless cease and desist letters, and
improper marking of related hoof trimming products, constitute patent misuse and inequitable
- 9 -
conduct and render the 332 patent unenforceable.
COUNT III
DEFAMATION
37. Extreme Chute incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 36 above as if fully set
forth herein.
38. The elements of defamation in Kentucky are (1) defamatory language, (2) about
the plaintiff, (3) which is published, and (4) which causes injury to reputation. Stringer v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781, 795-96. (Ky. 2004). Language is defamatory for purposes of
the first element of this test "if it tends to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or
ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or (3) injure him in his business or occupation."
McCall v. Courier-J ournal & Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882, 884 (Ky.1981). There are
two classes of defamatory statements in Kentucky, per quod and per se. If the statement is
defamatory per se, damages are presumed. Statements classified as defamatory per se include
those which attribute to someone a criminal offense, or conduct which is incompatible with
his business, trade, profession, or office. Gilliam v. Pikeville United Methodist Hosp. of
Kentucky, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 56, 61 (Ky. App. 2006).
39. Defendant Riley and his agents accused Beavers and employees of Extreme Chute
of patent infringement and theft, as noted above in paragraphs 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27.
These statements were published on the Riley Built Facebook page, the Mid State Hoof
Trimming Facebook page, and the Extreme Chute Company Facebook page. These statements
have been disseminated by Defendant Rileys agents in person, and broadcast over the internet.
These statements accuse plaintiffs of theft and other conduct incompatible with his business and
are, therefore defamatory per se.
- 10 -
- 11 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for relief and judgment as follows:
(a) the Court enter a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs Beavers, Beavers Hoof
Care, and Extreme Chute Company have not infringe the 332 Patent;
(b) the Court enjoin Defendant Riley and Defendant Riley Built and all of its officers,
agents, employees, representatives and counsel, and all persons in active concert or participation
with any of them, directly or indirectly, from charging infringement or instituting any action for
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,669,332 against Plaintiffs Beavers, Beavers Hoof Care and
Extreme Chute Company or any of its employees, customers or contractors;
(c) the Court declare this an exceptional case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. Plaintiffs
therefore specifically requests that the Court increase its damage award by a factor of three and
award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs in this action;
(d) the Court find that Defendants statements defamed Plaintiffs, and award Plaintiffs
damages as measured by lost sales, damage to business reputation, and other damages in an
amount to be determined at trial; and
(e) the Court award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as it may find appropriate .
Date: J uly 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
By: __s/ Michael Coblenz
Michael Coblenz, Esq.
MICHAEL COBLENZ ATTORNEY AT LAW
230 Lexington Green, Suite 116
Lexington, KY 40503
Telephone (859) 321-6206
Facsimile (859) 422-5082
E-mail mcoblenz@windstream.net
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
BEAVERS, BEVERS HOOF CARE AND
EXTREME CHUTE