Disruptive Resources v. Ballistic Barrier Products — Bullet-Resistant Blind Patents: “Blind” Covers Slatless Designs, “Decorative” Is Indefinite

Background

Disruptive Resources, LLC sued Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. and Mayday Security Solutions LLC for infringing seven patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,473,437; 11,561,070; 11,566,872; 11,828,574; 11,828,575; 11,879,707; and 11,920,905) covering bullet-resistant window blinds and barriers and a method for manufacturing flexible anti-ballistic laminate. Defendants sell ballistic protective blinds and barriers. The first patent describes a blind system with a sensing system that detects a threatening event outside a building and automatically moves the blind to a protective state. After a claim construction hearing on August 7, 2026, with no expert witnesses, the court construed ten disputed terms or term sets, applying the standard principles that claim words generally take their ordinary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history, and that limitations from preferred embodiments are not read into the claims.

The Court’s Holding

“Blind” / “blinds.” Defendants wanted a construction limited to a window covering formed from slat-like elements, arguing the patentee disclaimed slatless blinds while distinguishing a prior art reference. The court found no “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer, because the statements that the blinds control light “by dropping into the window and/or by rotating slats” were not a declaration that slats are required. The specification also describes roll-up and fabric blind systems without slats. The term means “covering assembly that is configurable between open and closed states, with or without slats.”

“Anti-ballistic” / “ballistic resistant.” Defendants argued these terms of degree are indefinite because the patents set no testing standard or quantitative threshold. The court disagreed, noting that a patent is presumed valid and indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The specification explains that the blinds are “resistant to penetration by high-speed ballistic objects,” which gives an objective boundary: something either resists projectiles or does not. The terms have their plain meaning, “configured to prevent or resist projectiles.” The parties agreed that “ballistic” means “relating to projectiles.”

“Decorative.” The court held this term, used in a method claim requiring an outer decorative layer on a ballistic laminate, indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The patents use “decorative” to refer to visual aesthetics, such as layers that are “pleasing aesthetically,” and that depends on personal opinion; the specification also says that outer layers may provide protection and/or decoration, undercutting plaintiff’s argument that the term is defined by location and function. The subjective element left skilled artisans without reasonable certainty about the claim’s scope.

Other terms. “Feeding a continuous length” means “supplying an unbroken, elongated length into the process.” “Laminate” and “laminated sheet” mean “multiple layers, arranged in a stack, joined or bonded together,” rejecting defendants’ phrase that they “function as a single material,” and “laminated together” is the corresponding act of bonding. “Flat” means “having a level surface” and is not indefinite. “Flexible” means “having the ability to bend and move” and is not indefinite. “Flex and move” (and variants) means “changing shape or form” and is not indefinite, since the specification explains how the barrier absorbs a projectile’s energy. “Dropping” or “drop” means “moving downward” and is not indefinite, leaving open whether the movement is gravity-driven or powered.

Key Takeaways

• Statements in prosecution that distinguish prior art on functional grounds will not be treated as disclaimers unless they are clear and unmistakable.
• Terms of degree such as “ballistic resistant” can be definite when the specification explains the purpose and an objective boundary, even without a numerical test standard.
• Subjective aesthetic terms such as “decorative” remain vulnerable to an indefiniteness challenge.
• A court may reject a proposed construction that would read out embodiments the specification describes, such as blinds without slats.

Why It Matters

Claim construction rulings frame the infringement and validity issues for trial. Here, the ruling keeps most terms broad for the patent owner, but holding “decorative” indefinite leaves claims that use it, such as claim 26 of the ‘905 patent, vulnerable to being held invalid. Patent drafters should note that aesthetic descriptors can create vulnerability, while functional performance language tied to an objective purpose is more likely to be upheld.

The ruling is a trial-court claim construction order. The infringement and any remaining validity questions will be decided later in the case.