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; Ballard Spahr LLP
- Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00108, E.D. Ark., 04/08/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ultimate Animal Trap" infringes three patents related to remote-controlled systems for trapping wild animals, particularly feral hogs.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of trapping entire herds of feral hogs, an invasive species causing significant agricultural damage, by using remote monitoring and triggering to improve capture efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’126 Patent family through a USPTO office action citing it against Defendant's own patent application, and pre-suit knowledge of the ’228 Patent via a written notice letter. Subsequent to the complaint filing, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 and 10,098,339 were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471, respectively). In July 2024, the USPTO issued certificates cancelling all asserted claims of both the ’228 and ’339 patents, a development which may render infringement allegations for those two patents moot. No such proceeding is mentioned for the ’126 Patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-11 | Priority Date for ’126, ’228, and ’339 Patents |
| 2015-08-11 | ’126 Patent Issued |
| 2016-03-16 | ’228 Patent Application Filed |
| 2017-03-07 | Alleged date Tusk became aware of ’126 Patent application |
| 2017-10-25 | ’339 Patent Application Filed |
| 2017-11-14 | ’228 Patent Issued |
| 2018-03-16 | Alleged date Tusk received written notice of ’228 Patent |
| 2018-10-16 | ’339 Patent Issued |
| 2019-04-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-08-14 | IPR proceedings initiated for ’228 and ’339 Patents |
| 2024-07-17 | All claims of ’339 Patent cancelled via IPR Certificate |
| 2024-07-19 | All claims of ’228 Patent cancelled via IPR Certificate |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228, "Systems and Methods for Animal Trapping," issued November 14, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of conventional animal traps, which often capture only a portion of a herd (or "sounder" of hogs), thereby "educating" the escapees and making them harder to trap in the future ('228 Patent, col. 1:25-39; Compl. ¶¶13, 20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for trapping animals using a large enclosure with a remotely operated gate. This allows an operator to monitor the trap with a camera and wait until an entire group of animals has entered before triggering the gate via a wireless signal from a display device. This selective, human-in-the-loop triggering is designed to maximize the capture rate and prevent trap avoidance by ensuring no animals from the target group escape ('228 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This method enables "whole-sounder removal," a more effective strategy for controlling nuisance animal populations compared to traditional, less selective trapping methods (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Essential elements of claim 1 (a method) include:
- Moving a portion of an enclosure from an open to a closed position.
- The enclosure, when closed, cooperating with a continuous ground surface to define the trap area.
- Using a release mechanism triggered by a signal from a control mechanism.
- The control mechanism is in communication with a display device.
- The display device receives a wireless detection signal from a camera assembly and, upon receipt, transmits a wireless control signal to the control mechanism.
- The camera assembly transmits its detection signal upon detecting pigs in the enclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126, "Remote Control Gate Release for Trap Enclosure," issued August 11, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its counterpart, the patent seeks to overcome the low capture rates and "trap avoidance" behavior associated with traditional animal traps ('126 Patent, col. 1:20-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trap system comprising an enclosure with a movable gate, a camera for detection, and a remote actuation mechanism. A key feature is the inclusion of an automatic food dispenser used to acclimate animals to the trap area over time. The system's remote trigger is activated when a "predetermined condition" is met, such as a specific number of animals being detected by the camera ('126 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-65).
- Technical Importance: By integrating automated feeding with remote monitoring and triggering, the system aims to condition wary animals to trust the trap site, thereby increasing the probability of capturing an entire group at once ('126 Patent, col. 6:53-7:3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- Essential elements of claim 1 (a trap system) include:
- An enclosure with a movable gate.
- An automatic food-dispensing mechanism positioned within the enclosure.
- "Means for remotely actuating the gate" when a "predetermined condition has been met."
- The predetermined condition includes options such as a certain date, time, or a "predetermined number of animals detected."
- "Means for detecting" the animals, wherein the number of animals is detected by a camera.
U.S. Patent No. 10,098,339, "System and Methods for Animal Trapping," issued October 16, 2018
Technology Synopsis
This patent, a divisional of the ’228 Patent's application, claims a trapping system focused on a specific electronic communication pathway. It describes a camera detecting an animal and transmitting a wireless detection signal to a display device, which in turn transmits a wireless control signal to a control mechanism that generates a release signal to close the trap gate ('339 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-18).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
Accused Features
The accused features are the components of the "Ultimate Animal Trap" system—specifically its camera, display device, and control and release mechanisms—which are alleged to form the infringing communication chain recited in the claim (Compl. ¶¶84(a-f)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Ultimate Animal Trap" system offered by Tusk Innovations Inc (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a system for trapping wild animals that includes a multi-panel enclosure with a movable gate, a camera for monitoring, an automatic feeder, and a remote-control system for triggering the gate (Compl. ¶¶28, 30, 32, 33). A product image from the Defendant's website lists components such as "1-8' Gate with manual and automatic trigger," "Cameras," and a "Black Cat Antenna" for wireless reception (Compl. ¶29, FIG. 3). The complaint positions the product as a direct competitor to the Plaintiff's own trapping system, targeting the market for feral hog control (Compl. ¶¶11-18, 25). The complaint includes a nighttime photograph showing the accused trap's gate in an open position with hogs nearby, illustrating its use in the field (Compl. ¶29, FIG. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,814,228 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 that permits passage of feral pigs into the enclosure to a closed position that restricts passage of the feral pigs out of the enclosure | The Ultimate Animal Trap System is used to move its gate from an open to a closed position to trap pigs. | ¶36(a) | col. 2:1-4 |
| wherein in the closed position, 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's enclosure, when closed, works with the ground to form the trap area, with the ground extending continuously inside and out. | ¶36(b) | col. 7:42-46 |
| The...release mechanism effects movement of at least one portion of the enclosure...upon receipt of a release signal from a control mechanism that is in communication with a display device | The accused trap's "manual and automatic trigger" is a release mechanism that closes the gate upon receiving a signal from a control mechanism connected to a display device. | ¶36(d) | col. 7:55-58 |
| 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 upon receipt of the wireless detection signal from the camera assembly | The accused system's display device is alleged to communicate with the camera and is configured to receive a wireless detection signal and transmit a wireless control signal. | ¶36(e) | col. 7:59-65 |
| 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 pigs and transmits a wireless detection signal to the display device. A photograph shows the camera monitoring animals in the enclosure (Compl. ¶29, FIG. 1). | ¶36(f) | col. 8:14-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Procedural Question: The subsequent cancellation of all claims of the ’228 Patent in IPR proceeding IPR2020-01470 raises a threshold question of mootness for all infringement allegations related to this patent.
- Technical Question: Assuming the patent were valid, a key question would be whether the accused "display device" itself performs the claimed function of transmitting a wireless control signal, as required by the claim. A defense could be that a device like a smartphone merely acts as a user interface, while a remote server actually receives the user's command and transmits the control signal to the trap, potentially breaking the claimed communication chain.
9,101,126 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 Ultimate Animal Trap System has an enclosure with an opening for animals to pass through. | ¶60(b) | col. 4:36-39 |
| 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. The complaint includes annotated images showing the gate in both positions (Compl. ¶29, FIGS. 1-2). | ¶60(c) | col. 4:65-67 |
| an automatic food-dispensing mechanism positioned in the enclosure and...configured to selectively provide food...at a predetermined time or at predetermined time intervals | The accused system functions with an automatic feeder inside the enclosure to provide food to animals. An image of the feeder is provided (Compl. ¶33, FIG. 4). | ¶60(d) | col. 6:65-7:3 |
| means for remotely actuating the gate...when a predetermined condition has been met, the means for remotely actuating the gate including a transmitter and a remote control mechanism | The accused system has a means for remote actuation (transmitter and control mechanism) that moves the gate when a predetermined condition is met. | ¶60(e) | col. 4:5-14 |
| where the predetermined condition includes...a predetermined number of animals detected in the enclosure | The complaint alleges the accused product's remote actuation is triggered by conditions including the number of animals detected. | ¶60(e) | col. 8:31-36 |
| means for detecting the presence of animals in the enclosure, and the predetermined number of animals detected in the enclosure is detected by a camera | The accused system uses a camera to detect the presence and number of animals in the enclosure. | ¶60(f) | col. 8:37-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 recites "means for remotely actuating the gate" and "means for detecting the presence of animals." Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of these terms is limited to the structures disclosed in the patent's specification (e.g., key fobs, specific IP camera networks) and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the specific hardware and software architecture of the accused product is structurally equivalent to that disclosed in the ’126 patent.
- Technical Question: The claim requires actuation upon a "predetermined condition" being met. A central factual question is whether the accused product is actually used in an automated or semi-automated mode where a pre-set condition triggers the gate, or if it is operated as a purely manual remote system where a human operator makes a real-time decision to close the gate, which may not satisfy the "predetermined" limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: '228 Patent
- The Term: "display device"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires this component to perform a dual function: receiving a wireless detection signal from the camera and transmitting a wireless control signal to the trap's control mechanism. The proper construction of this term is critical to determining if the accused system's communication architecture infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the user's phone or computer ("display device") only shows a video feed while a separate server handles the command relay, it may not perform the claimed transmission function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to components like "a remote display device, such as a monitor" ('228 Patent, col. 6:24-25), which could suggest any device capable of displaying the camera feed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment in FIG. 11A depicts a "computer 165" as the device that receives and processes signals, suggesting a component with more capability than a simple screen and implying that the "display device" is an active part of the control network.
Patent: '126 Patent
- The Term: "predetermined condition"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of claim 1, as it distinguishes the invention from a simple manual remote control. The infringement case for the ’126 Patent may depend on whether the accused product's functionality includes triggering based on pre-set, automated conditions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim provides a non-exhaustive list of possible conditions, including "at least one of a certain date, a certain time...and a predetermined number of animals detected" ('126 Patent, col. 8:31-36), which could be argued to encompass a range of triggers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the system as being "programmed to automatically trigger the gate when a pre-determined condition has been met" ('126 Patent, col. 6:55-58). This language may support a narrower construction requiring that the condition be set in advance and that the system acts automatically upon it being met, as opposed to a user simply observing a condition and then manually initiating the trigger.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Tusk Innovations provides customers with the "Ultimate Animal Trap" system along with "training and instruction on its use," with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶41, 65, 89). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused system is a material part of the invention, especially made for infringement, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶50, 74, 98).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents, asserting Defendant had knowledge of its infringing activities. The basis for knowledge varies by patent: for the ’126 Patent, from a USPTO action citing the patent family against Defendant's own application since March 2017 (Compl. ¶61); for the ’228 Patent, from a written notice letter sent in March 2018 (Compl. ¶37); and for the ’339 Patent, from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶85).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Viability and Mootness: Given the post-filing cancellation of all asserted claims of the ’228 and ’339 patents in Inter Partes Review, a threshold issue for the court will be the mootness of two-thirds of the lawsuit, likely shifting the entire dispute to the viability of the infringement allegations under the sole remaining ’126 patent.
- Scope of "Means-Plus-Function" Limitations: The infringement analysis for the ’126 patent will heavily depend on claim construction of its "means-plus-function" terms. A key question will be whether the specific electronic and software components of the accused "Ultimate Animal Trap" are structurally equivalent to the embodiments disclosed in the ’126 patent specification.
- Operational Reality vs. Claim Language: A central evidentiary question for the ’126 patent will be one of functional operation: does the accused product actually operate based on a "predetermined condition" as required by the claim, or is it a purely manual remote-control system where an operator's real-time decision to close the gate falls outside that limitation?