DCT
4:19-cv-00108
Jager Pro Inc v. Tusk Innovations Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jager Pro, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Tusk Innovations Inc. (Arkansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00108, E.D. Ark., 02/08/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas because Defendant is an Arkansas corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, where it has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote-controlled animal trapping system infringes patents related to systems and methods for capturing entire groups of wild animals, particularly feral hogs.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of feral hog overpopulation by enabling more effective trapping methods than traditional, single-capture traps.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Specifically, it alleges the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cited the application for the ’126 Patent as prior art against one of Defendant’s own patent applications in March 2017. The complaint also alleges Plaintiff sent a written notice of infringement regarding the ’228 Patent in March 2018.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-11 | Earliest Priority Date for '126 and '228 Patents |
| 2015-08-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126 Issued |
| 2016-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 Application Filed |
| 2017-03-07 | USPTO allegedly cites '126 Patent application against Defendant's pending patent application |
| 2017-11-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 Issued |
| 2018-03-16 | Plaintiff allegedly provides written notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2019-02-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 - "Systems and Methods for Animal Trapping"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228, "Systems and Methods for Animal Trapping," issued November 14, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional animal traps as being inefficient for high populations of nuisance animals like feral hogs, leading to low-volume captures and "future trap avoidance by non-captured animals" that learn to evade the traps (’228 Patent, col. 1:25-34; Compl. ¶12, 19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for capturing a group of animals using a large enclosure with a remotely triggered gate. An operator monitors the trap via a camera system, waits for a desired number of animals to enter, and then remotely sends a signal to a control mechanism to close the gate, thereby trapping the entire group at once (’228 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65).
- Technical Importance: This method of "whole-sounder removal" is described as more efficient and effective than traditional methods because it reduces the opportunity for animals to escape and learn trap-avoidance behaviors (Compl. ¶15, 19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 ('228 Patent, col. 7:50-8:17; Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of asserted claim 1 include:
- Moving a portion of an enclosure from an open to a closed position.
- The enclosure cooperating with a ground surface to define a trapping area.
- The enclosure comprising a release mechanism that moves the gate upon receiving a release signal from a control mechanism.
- A display device that communicates with a camera assembly, configured to (i) receive a wireless detection signal from the camera and (ii) transmit a wireless control signal to the control mechanism.
- The camera assembly transmitting the wireless detection signal to the display device upon detecting animals.
U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126 - "Remote Control Gate Release for Trap Enclosure"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126, "Remote Control Gate Release for Trap Enclosure," issued August 11, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’228 Patent: conventional traps are ill-suited for capturing large populations of nuisance animals and result in "low volume capture numbers" (’126 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for trapping animals that includes a large enclosure, a movable gate, an automatic food-dispensing mechanism to lure animals, and means for remotely actuating the gate when a predetermined condition is met, such as the detection of a certain number of animals by a camera (’126 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-56).
- Technical Importance: The combination of an automatic feeder with remote camera monitoring and gate actuation allows an operator to condition animals to trust the trap over time and trigger it only when the optimal number of animals are inside, maximizing capture rates (’126 Patent, col. 7:4-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (’126 Patent, col. 7:36-8:4; Compl. ¶58).
- The essential elements of asserted claim 1 include:
- An enclosure with at least one opening and a movable gate.
- An automatic food-dispensing mechanism positioned in the enclosure.
- A "means for remotely actuating the gate" when a predetermined condition is met, where the condition can be a certain date, time, food level, or number of animals.
- A "means for detecting the presence of the plurality of animals therein the enclosure," where the number of animals is detected by a camera.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Ultimate Animal Trap System" offered for sale by Defendant Tusk Innovations (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a system for trapping animals that includes an enclosure with a movable gate, a camera assembly for monitoring, a release mechanism described as a "manual and automatic trigger," and a remote-control mechanism for closing the gate (Compl. ¶26, 28, 29). A marketing screenshot from Defendant's website lists components of the "Ultimate Hog Trap," including a camera and a "manual and automatic trigger" (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 3). The system is also alleged to function with an automatic feeder (Compl. ¶31). A photograph from Defendant's website shows an automatic feeder, which the complaint alleges is positioned within the enclosure to provide food (Compl. p. 10, Fig. 4).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning beyond alleging it is offered for sale.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'228 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| moving at least one portion of an enclosure from an open position ... to a closed position | The accused system's gate moves from an open position that allows passage to a closed one that restricts it. A nighttime image shows the accused trap's gate in an open position (Fig. 1), and a second image depicts it closed (Fig. 2). | ¶34(a), p. 8 | col. 7:51-60 |
| ... the enclosure cooperates with a ground surface to define an enclosure area ... and the ground surface extends continuously from within the enclosure area to areas surrounding the enclosure | The accused trap enclosure is placed on the ground, which forms the floor of the trap. | ¶34(b) | col. 7:57-60 |
| ... the enclosure comprises a release mechanism that effects movement of the at least one portion of the enclosure from the open position to the closed position | The accused system includes a "manual and automatic trigger" that acts as the release mechanism. | ¶34(c), ¶29 | col. 4:50-54 |
| ... the release mechanism effects movement ... upon receipt of a release signal from a control mechanism that is in communication with a display device | The accused system's release mechanism is triggered by a signal from a remote control mechanism, which is in communication with a display device. | ¶34(d) | col. 8:1-3 |
| ... the display device is in communication with a camera assembly and configured to: receive a wireless detection signal from the camera assembly; and transmit a wireless control signal ... | The accused system's display device allegedly receives a detection signal from the camera and, in turn, transmits a control signal to generate the release signal. | ¶34(e) | col. 8:3-13 |
| ... upon detection of a presence of feral pigs within the enclosure by the camera assembly, the camera assembly transmits the wireless detection signal to the display device. | The accused system's camera detects the presence of animals and transmits a wireless detection signal to the display device. | ¶34(f) | col. 8:13-17 |
'126 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an enclosure having at least one opening through which at least one animal ... can pass | The accused system includes a physical enclosure with an opening. | ¶58(b) | col. 3:27-30 |
| a gate positioned therein the at least one opening, where the gate is movable between an open position and a closed position | The accused system has a gate that moves between open and closed positions to control access to the enclosure. | ¶58(c) | col. 3:55-58 |
| an automatic food-dispensing mechanism positioned therein the enclosure ... | The accused system functions with an automatic feeder inside the enclosure. | ¶58(d), ¶31 | col. 5:58-63 |
| a means for remotely actuating the gate to move the gate from the open position to the closed position when a predetermined condition has been met ... | The accused system has a remote-control mechanism, including a transmitter and antenna, to close the gate when conditions like a certain number of animals are detected. | ¶58(e), ¶30 | col. 4:1-5 |
| a means for detecting the presence of the plurality of animals therein the enclosure ... is detected by a camera. | The accused system uses a camera assembly to detect the presence and number of animals inside the enclosure. | ¶58(f), ¶28 | col. 5:1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The ’126 Patent uses means-plus-function language for the "means for remotely actuating" and "means for detecting" elements. A central question for the court will be whether the specific structures used in the accused "Ultimate Animal Trap" (e.g., its specific camera, trigger, and remote control) are structurally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification (e.g., key fob transmitters, cell phone controllers, specific camera network setups).
- Technical Questions: For the ’228 Patent, the complaint alleges a specific, multi-step communication flow: camera detects animals, sends a "detection signal" to a "display device," which then "transmit[s] a wireless control signal" to the gate mechanism. A factual question will be whether the accused product operates this way. It raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to show the "display device" itself performs the active step of transmitting a control signal, as opposed to simply displaying a video feed for a human who then uses a separate remote to trigger the trap.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the '228 Patent: "display device"
- The Term: "display device"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis of the ’228 Patent, as it is the central node in the claimed communication chain between the camera and the gate's control mechanism. Its definition will determine whether a simple monitor qualifies, or if a device with more advanced processing and transmitting capabilities is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 defines the "display device" as comprising "at least one of a computer, a wireless handheld device, a remote control, a user interface, or a telephone" (’228 Patent, col. 8:18-21). This suggests the term can encompass a wide range of components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent claim 1 requires the "display device" to perform two distinct functions: "receive a wireless detection signal" and "transmit a wireless control signal" (’228 Patent, col. 8:6-13). This functional requirement may support a narrower construction, limiting the term to devices that can both receive and transmit signals as part of the automated or semi-automated trapping decision, rather than merely displaying an image for an operator.
Term from the '126 Patent: "means for remotely actuating the gate"
- The Term: "means for remotely actuating the gate"
- Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not its literal dictionary definition but is instead limited to the corresponding structures described in the patent's specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement determination will hinge entirely on a structural comparison between the accused product and the patent's disclosed embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the function is to "move the gate from the open position to the closed position when a predetermined condition has been met" (’126 Patent, col. 7:47-50). The range of "predetermined conditions" is broad, including date, time, food level, or number of animals detected (’126 Patent, col. 7:51-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing this function includes specific embodiments: (1) a remote control mechanism with a receiver, relay, and solenoid triggered by a wireless transmitter like a key fob or tripwire; and (2) a system using a cell phone controller that receives a call to trigger the gate (’126 Patent, col. 4:1-41; Figs. 9-10). The scope of the claim will be limited to these specific structures and their legal equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. For inducement, it alleges Tusk Innovations instructs customers on how to use the "Ultimate Animal Trap" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶39, 63). For contributory infringement, it alleges the accused system is especially made for infringing the patents, is a material part of the invention, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶48, 72).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge from two separate events. First, it claims Defendant knew of the ’126 Patent as of March 7, 2017, because its underlying application was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent application (Compl. ¶22, 59). Second, it claims Defendant knew of the ’228 Patent as of March 16, 2018, after receiving a written notice letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶21, 35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: For the ’126 Patent’s "means for..." claims, can the specific hardware and software architecture of Defendant's "Ultimate Animal Trap" be shown to be the same as or equivalent to the key fob/solenoid or cell phone controller systems explicitly disclosed in the patent's specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: For the ’228 Patent, does the accused "display device" perform the active, two-part communication role required by Claim 1—receiving a wireless signal from the camera and subsequently transmitting a separate wireless control signal to the gate—or does it function as a passive monitor for a human who uses a separate device to trigger the trap?
- A third issue will relate to willfulness: The complaint alleges specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge for both patents, including a USPTO office action citing the ’126 Patent family and a direct notice letter for the ’228 Patent. The court will need to determine if these facts, if proven, are sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement.