Zambrano v. Scott & Linda’s Leather LLC: Anti-Cribbing Collar Patent Remanded
Victor Zambrano filed suit against Linda Scott and Linda’s Leather LLC in Kentucky state court, asserting two patents covering anti-cribbing collars for horses. The case reached federal court only because Zambrano — the plaintiff — attempted to remove it himself, a procedural maneuver uniformly rejected by federal courts. The action was remanded to Woodford Circuit Court after just 148 days.
Filing to Case Remanded in 148 days
148 days in federal court before remand to Woodford Circuit Court
Case remanded to state court: what the transfer means for both parties
Why remand was inevitable: only defendants can remove
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the right to remove a state court action to federal court belongs exclusively to defendants. When Zambrano — who originally chose to file in Woodford Circuit Court — attempted to remove his own case to federal court, he invoked a procedural right he did not possess. Judge Caldwell cited uniform federal authority from the Supreme Court down through the Sixth Circuit in granting the remand. No merits ruling was issued.
Improper plaintiff removalZambrano returns to the forum he originally chose
By originally filing in Woodford Circuit Court, Zambrano signalled a preference for state court adjudication. His subsequent attempt to remove to federal court was procedurally impermissible. The remand restores that original forum. Zambrano retains all substantive patent claims but must now pursue them under Kentucky state court procedure — including any differences in discovery, pace, and jury practices compared to the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Back to state courtScott and Linda’s Leather secure a return to state court jurisdiction
Linda Scott and Linda’s Leather LLC successfully moved to remand, meaning the patent infringement claims will be litigated in Woodford Circuit Court rather than federal court. Defendants may have strategic reasons to prefer state court — or simply objected to an improper removal. No finding on the merits of the patent claims was made at this stage, so defendants still face full exposure on infringement and validity in state proceedings.
Defendants’ remand motion grantedPatent cases in state court: a narrower but real litigation path
While patent infringement claims under federal law typically belong in federal court under exclusive jurisdiction, the manner of arriving there matters. The remand does not end the dispute — it shifts venue. State courts can apply federal patent law, though appeal paths differ. Parties operating in niche product markets such as equine equipment should note that forum selection strategy at the filing stage is difficult to reverse without incurring delay and cost.
Venue strategy mattersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Victor Zambrano | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Linda Scott | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Linda’s Leather LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Yancy | Attorney | Counsel for Victor ZambranoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James M. Francis | Attorney | Counsel for Victor ZambranoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Francis Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Victor ZambranoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Edward L. Yancy | Law Firm | Representing Victor ZambranoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Todd Duncan | Attorney | Counsel for Linda ScottSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duncan Galloway Egan Greenwald, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Linda ScottSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Karen K. Caldwell | Judge | Kentucky Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s ruling is purely procedural — no assessment of patent validity, infringement, or damages was made. By granting the motion to remand, the Court confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) grants removal rights exclusively to defendants. Zambrano, as the original plaintiff, lacked standing to remove his own action. The remand order returns the case to Woodford Circuit Court with full substantive claims intact, meaning the patent dispute over US10398129B2 and USD0869783S remains open and unresolved.
US10398129B2 & USD0869783S — Anti-Cribbing Collar Utility and Design Patents
US10398129B2 is a utility patent covering the functional aspects of an anti-cribbing collar — a device used to prevent horses from cribbing, a stable vice in which horses bite and gulp air. Filed under application number US15/470953, this patent protects the mechanical or structural innovations that make the collar effective. USD0869783S is a complementary design patent (application US29/590698) protecting the ornamental appearance of the same product category. Together, they represent a layered IP strategy covering both function and form.
The combination of a utility patent and a design patent on a single equine product is a meaningful enforcement posture. It forces competitors to navigate both functional claims — requiring substantive design-around effort — and aesthetic claims that restrict visual similarity. In niche markets like equine equipment, where product differentiation is often subtle and distribution channels are narrow, this dual protection can create significant barriers to entry. Any manufacturer or retailer of anti-cribbing collars should treat both patents as active enforcement risks given the ongoing state court litigation.
Should you run an FTO against US10398129B2 and USD0869783S?
If your business manufactures, imports, or retails anti-cribbing collars or related equine restraint accessories, these two patents warrant a freedom-to-operate assessment. The utility patent covers functional collar design features; the design patent restricts ornamental similarity. With active litigation continuing in Woodford Circuit Court, the risk of being drawn into infringement proceedings is real — particularly for smaller suppliers operating in overlapping product categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10398129B2 and USD0869783S against your product specifications, identify prior art that may narrow enforceability, and flag related applications in the same patent family. For design patents in particular, Eureka’s visual similarity search can help determine whether your product’s appearance falls within the protected ornamental envelope — before you face a cease-and-desist or court filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10398129B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Equine Equipment and Specialty Accessories
Explore related patent infringement actions involving equine and animal equipment accessories in U.S. district courts, including cases with dual utility and design patent assertions.
What this case signals for the equine equipment IP landscape
A procedurally terminated federal case still carries real lessons for patent holders and competitors in the equine products sector.
Plaintiffs cannot undo their forum choice through improper removal
This case is a clear reminder: the removal statute is unidirectional. Patent holders who file in state court cannot later invoke federal removal to change tactics or gain a perceived advantage. Attempting to do so results in wasted time, legal costs, and potential adverse impressions without any merits ruling.
The underlying patent dispute remains live in Woodford Circuit Court
Neither US10398129B2 nor USD0869783S was adjudicated at the federal level. The infringement claims against Linda Scott and Linda’s Leather LLC are substantively unresolved. Competitors and market participants should treat these patents as actively enforced — litigation continues in state court.
Zambrano v Linda — key questions answered
The case was remanded because plaintiff Victor Zambrano — who originally filed in Woodford Circuit Court — attempted to remove the action to federal court himself. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), only defendants may remove a state court action to federal court. Judge Caldwell granted the defendants’ motion to remand, citing uniform federal authority including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets.
Victor Zambrano asserted two patents: US10398129B2, a utility patent covering functional aspects of an anti-cribbing collar for horses, and USD0869783S, a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the same product. Both patents remain in active dispute as the case continues in Woodford Circuit Court, Kentucky.
No. The remand was purely procedural and did not adjudicate any substantive patent claims. US10398129B2 and USD0869783S were not assessed for validity or infringement at the federal level. The case continues in Woodford Circuit Court, where Zambrano retains all infringement claims against Linda Scott and Linda’s Leather LLC.
No. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), removal from state to federal court is a right granted exclusively to defendants. Courts have uniformly held — including the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit, and multiple circuits — that plaintiffs who originally chose to file in state court cannot subsequently remove the action to federal court. Zambrano v. Scott is a recent example of this principle being applied and enforced.
An anti-cribbing collar is a device worn around a horse’s neck to prevent cribbing — a behavioural vice where horses bite onto fixed objects and gulp air, which can cause serious digestive and health problems. The functional design of such a collar can qualify for utility patent protection if it embodies a novel and non-obvious mechanical solution. Its ornamental appearance may separately qualify for design patent protection, as asserted in USD0869783S.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.