Ourpet's Co v. Leather Brothers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OurPet's Company (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Leather Brothers, Inc. (Arkansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Choken Welling LLP; Patents + Copyrights + Trademarks Law Group
• Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00244, E.D. Ark., 04/11/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there, and the alleged infringement occurred within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s stainless steel pet bowls, which feature adhered rubber rings on the bottom, infringe two patents related to non-skid covered pet bowls.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the pet products sector, concerning a common feature—non-skid bases for pet food and water bowls—that aims to combine the hygiene of stainless steel with the stability of a rubber or plastic base.
• Key Procedural History: The two patents-in-suit are part of a long chain of related applications. The complaint notes that a Certificate of Correction was issued for the '529 patent to correct certain figures. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents via Plaintiff's product markings and its public-facing website that lists its patents.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,286,589, “Covered Bowls Such as Pet Food and Water Bowls,” Issued October 16, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an improved pet bowl that combines the anti-microbial advantages of stainless steel with a non-skid feature, noting that prior art solutions were either not designed for stainless steel bowls or involved separate, non-durable components ('589 Patent, col. 1:30-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a pet feeder comprising a metal bowl and a rubber or plastic cover secured to the bowl's exterior surface. This cover can be permanently affixed (e.g., molded on or attached with adhesive) or removably secured via an interference fit, providing a durable, non-skid surface that also offers insulation and aesthetic benefits ('589 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-42). The structure is illustrated in figures such as Figure 3, which shows a cross-section of the bowl (50) and the affixed cover (40) ('589 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a single-unit, durable, non-skid stainless steel pet bowl, overcoming the problem of stainless steel bowls sliding on floors and the cleaning and durability issues associated with separate, removable covers ('589 Patent, col. 1:61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify asserted claims, but the independent claims are 1 and 7.
• Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a "single member animal feeder" with a bowl and a cover "permanently attached to said bowl through frictional force and interference fit."
• Independent Claim 7 recites, in part, an "animal feeder" with a bowl and "a lower surface cover affixed to said lower surface, said lower surface cover is molded to said lower surface," where the cover "extends up... at least a portion of said annular sidewall."
• The complaint’s general allegations suggest a right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, may be reserved.

U.S. Patent No. 8,973,529, “Covered Bowls Such as Pet Food and Water Bowls,” Issued March 10, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the tendency of hard stainless steel pet bowls to "move or slide about on smooth flooring surfaces," which can frustrate the pet and cause noise or scratching ('529 Patent, col. 1:38-44). It further notes that existing removable rubber covers can be an "impediment when it comes to cleaning" and may lack durability ('529 Patent, col. 1:45-52).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a metallic pet bowl with a permanently affixed nonmetallic (e.g., rubber or elastomeric) cover on the lower exterior surface, attached via methods like bonding or vulcanizing ('529 Patent, col. 2:8-14). The patent describes that the cover can be an "annular shape" covering the lower periphery or a "disc-like shape" covering the entire bottom, with the goal of creating a durable and machine-washable assembly ('529 Patent, col. 1:53-58, col. 2:22-29).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to create a fully integrated, non-skid stainless steel bowl that is both durable and easy to clean, addressing the perceived shortcomings of both uncovered bowls and bowls with removable, non-durable bases ('529 Patent, col. 1:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify asserted claims. The independent apparatus claim is Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, an animal feeder with a metal bowl and a "cover secured to at least a portion of the exterior lower outer surface," where the cover "comprises an annular second sidewall extending from said exterior lower outer surface."
• The complaint’s allegations suggest Plaintiff may reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products include Defendant’s "Stainless Steel Heavy Weight Bowls" and "Ant Resistant Stainless Steel Pet Dish" product lines (Compl. ¶33, Exs. 3-4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused products as stainless steel pet bowls featuring a "rubber ring adhered to the bottom" (Compl. Ex. 3). This rubber ring is marketed as a feature that "helps prevent spills" and keeps the feeding area tidy, which points to a non-skid function (Compl. Ex. 3).
• Exhibit 3 to the complaint provides a product image and description for "Stainless Steel Heavy Weight Bowls," showing a metallic bowl with a black, non-skid base and stating "The rubber ring adhered to the bottom of the bowl helps prevent spills" (Compl. Ex. 3).
• A separate product line, the "Ant Resistant" bowls, is also accused; these products are described as having a platform that "lifts sides of bowl off the floor" to prevent ants from reaching the food (Compl. Ex. 4).
• The complaint alleges the parties are direct competitors in the pet bowl industry (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'589 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s bowls with an "adhered" rubber ring infringe. The following chart summarizes the allegations as they may relate to independent claim 7.

'529 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges the same products also infringe the ’529 Patent. The following chart summarizes the allegations as they may relate to independent claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A central question for the '589 Patent will be whether a "rubber ring adhered to the bottom" meets the claim limitation "molded to said lower surface." The patent's specification discusses adhesive as a possible attachment method, but the claim specifically uses the term "molded."
• Technical Questions: For the '529 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether the accused "rubber ring" has the structure of an "annular second sidewall" as required by claim 1. This is notable because the complaint itself states that the '529 Patent teaches a cover that "need not extend up the sidewall" (Compl. ¶27), creating potential tension with the language of the asserted claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "molded to said lower surface" ('589 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for claim 7 of the '589 Patent will likely depend on the construction of this term, as the accused product is described as having a ring "adhered" to the bowl. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome could determine whether adhesive bonding falls within the scope of "molded."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the cover can be affixed by "a variety of methods, including molding or manual manipulation or adhesive attachment" ('589 Patent, col. 3:18-20). Plaintiff may argue this context suggests "molded" should not be interpreted narrowly to exclude other forms of permanent affixation like adhesion.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The doctrine of claim differentiation may be invoked. Claim 7 explicitly requires the cover to be "molded," while other claims are silent on the method or, like dependent claim 2, separately add an "adhesive." Defendant may argue that the use of different terms implies they have different meanings, and "molded" should be limited to a manufacturing process distinct from simply applying an adhesive.

Term: "annular second sidewall" ('529 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining infringement of the '529 Patent, as it requires the accused product's cover to have a specific structure beyond being a simple flat ring. The dispute will be whether the accused "rubber ring" constitutes such a sidewall.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that a cover may traverse only a "minimal amount of the height" of the bowl's sidewall ('529 Patent, col. 4:9-11). Plaintiff could argue that any vertical component of the rubber ring, however small, meets the "sidewall" limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures common to both patents depict a cover with a distinct base and an upwardly-extending wall (e.g., '529 Patent, Fig. 3, elements 14 and 12). A defendant may argue that a simple, uniform rubber ring lacks the claimed "sidewall" structure and is more akin to a gasket on the bottom plane of the bowl.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement based on Defendant "offering for sale and selling their infringing products to dealers at wholesale prices" who then sell to end users (Compl. ¶37, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "full knowledge of the Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶38, ¶46). The factual basis asserted for this pre-suit knowledge includes Plaintiff's practice of marking its products as patented and listing the patents on its company website (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and differentiation: can the term "molded to" in the '589 patent be construed broadly enough to read on a product with an "adhered" ring, particularly when the patent family uses distinct terms like "adhesive" and "frictional fit" in other claims?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused "rubber ring" possess the distinct "annular second sidewall" structure required by claim 1 of the '529 patent, or is it a structurally simpler feature that may not meet this limitation? The analysis may hinge on the physical characteristics of the accused products themselves.