DCT

2:18-cv-00962

Pet Check Technology LLC v. Handlr Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00962, C.D. Cal., 09/27/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' regular and substantial business, continuous dealings, and offers for sale of infringing products to customers within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' web and mobile application for managing pet care and other services infringes a patent related to verifying and tracking such services, and also constitutes a breach of a prior license agreement between the parties.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to software systems, typically using mobile devices and GPS, that allow service-based businesses to provide clients with verifiable proof that scheduled, location-based tasks were performed correctly.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a pre-existing business relationship where Defendant Brittany Alwerud, on behalf of DogZenergy, Inc., licensed the Plaintiff’s technology system in 2012. Plaintiff alleges this license agreement was breached when Defendants developed and launched a competing system, "Handlr's System." The complaint also notes that Plaintiff sent three letters notifying Defendants of the alleged infringement starting in August 2016, which may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-28 '334 Patent Priority Date
2012-09-21 Defendant Alwerud signed License and Subscription Agreement
2014-07-02 Handlr, Inc. incorporated and began creating Handlr's System
2015-08-01 DogZenergy allegedly began using the competing Handlr's System
2015-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,165,334 Issued
2015-12-15 Defendant Alwerud terminated DogZenergy's account with Plaintiff
2016-03-17 Plaintiff allegedly received first response from Defendant's attorney
2016-08-22 Plaintiff sent first infringement notice letter to Defendants
2016-10-14 Plaintiff sent second infringement notice letter to Defendants
2017-01-05 Plaintiff sent third infringement notice letter to Defendants
2018-09-27 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,165,334 - “Pet and People Care Management System”

  • Issued: October 20, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that clients of pet care services, such as dog walkers, must "blindly trust that the pet care company will perform the services agreed upon," lacking a reliable way to verify that a service provider arrived on time, stayed for the agreed duration, or followed a specific route (’334 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a management system that uses a portable electronic device (like a smartphone) carried by the service provider. To verify a visit, the provider scans a unique code (e.g., a barcode) at the client’s location to log the start and end of the service (’334 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-9). During the service, such as a dog walk, the device’s GPS tracks the provider's location over time, creating a map of the route taken (’334 Patent, col. 2:35-44). This verified data is transmitted to a central server and made available to the client, providing proof of service (’334 Patent, col. 3:20-27). Figure 1 illustrates this architecture, showing a caregiver (50) using a portable device (25) to interact with a system website (70) and verify a visit at a customer's home (60).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides accountability and transparency in the remote-service industry by creating a verifiable, real-time record of a provider's presence and activities at a client's location (’334 Patent, col. 1:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶12, p. 7).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A pet caregiver portable electronic device with a microprocessor, memory, and a geographic location sensing mechanism.
    • A server configured to operate a website for scheduling, storing, and viewing appointment information.
    • An image of a pet care customer code stored at the appointment site on a medium readable by the portable device.
    • The server is programmed to receive the code from the portable device to verify the start of a visit, store start and end times, store time-sequenced geographic locations during the visit, and transmit a visual map of the walk to the customer.
    • The portable device includes a clock and is programmed to store start/end times locally if a transmission signal is unavailable, and transmit them later.
  • The complaint notes that infringement is alleged for "one or more claims of the '334 Patent, including, but not limited to, claim 1." (Compl. ¶9, p. 13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Handlr's System," which is described as a "web and mobile application system for providing a personal concierge application to small business owners and their customers." (Compl. ¶¶1, 4, p. 6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Handlr's System is a competing service developed by Defendants after they had licensed and used Plaintiff's "Pet Check's System." (Compl. ¶¶1-5, p. 6).
  • Alleged technical features include an appointment management system, use of a mobile phone with geographic location sensing, scheduling and storing of appointments, and storing customer information. (Compl. ¶¶14-17).
  • The system is alleged to use an "identification code" to access appointment sites and identify customers and providers. (Compl. ¶18). It is also alleged to provide "GPS tracking for all team members" and to enable "check-in and check-out notifications." (Compl. ¶20).
  • The complaint references a downloaded copy of the Handlr website's testimonials page as evidence of the system's use and features. (Compl. ¶2, p. 6, Exhibit F).
  • A key technical allegation is that the system "enables transmission of stored data either immediately, or at a later time if required," suggesting an offline capability. (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'334 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a pet caregiver portable electronic device including a portable electronic device microprocessor, a portable electronic device memory, and a geographic location sensing mechanism... Handlr's System includes use of a portable electronic device, such as a mobile phone that includes geographic location sensing and is capable of receiving data to determine its geographic location. ¶15 col. 9:48-52
a server including a server processor, a server memory... the server operating a website storing user accounts... permitting the pet caregiver and the pet care customer to schedule the per care visit on the website... Handlr's System is an appointment management system that permits scheduling, viewing, and storing appointments that include a distance, a duration, or a route for a scheduled visit. ¶¶14, 16 col. 9:53-64
an image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site on a medium readable by the portable electronic device, to enable the pet caregiver portable electronic device to read the code... Handlr's System includes requesting and using an identification code that is stored, received, used to access the appointment site and used to identify customers and/or providers. The system also enables tracking customers and team members to receive check-in and check-out notifications. ¶¶18, 20 col. 10:5-12
store data received from the pet caregiver portable electronic device indicating time-sequenced geographic locations... Handlr's System includes GPS tracking for all team members and includes the capability to store, send and/or receive... route information for appointments. ¶¶19, 20 col. 10:35-43
the pet caregiver portable electronic device further comprising a clock and being further programmed with instructions to detect whether a transmission signal is available... and if the transmission signal is unavailable, read and store the time from the clock... and transmit the... stored time... when the transmission signal is available. Handlr's System enables transmission of stored data either immediately, or at a later time if required. ¶21 col. 10:54-68
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question is whether the accused "identification code" and "check-in and check-out notifications" (Compl. ¶¶18, 20) function in the same way as the claimed "image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site" that is "read" by the portable device. The complaint does not specify whether Handlr's System requires scanning a physical object (like a barcode) at the client site, as described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or uses a different method like a geofence-triggered prompt or a simple software button-press.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may depend on whether the term "read the code at the pet care appointment site" can be construed to cover methods beyond scanning a physical medium. The evidence presented in the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the precise mechanism used by the Handlr's System for check-in and check-out.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "an image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the core mechanism for verifying a service provider's presence. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused Handlr's System, which allegedly uses an "identification code" and "check-in... notifications" (Compl. ¶¶18, 20), meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification heavily features a specific physical embodiment (a barcode), which Defendants may argue limits the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent mentions that if scanning fails, an "alpha-numeric or similar written code may also be present at the care visit site as a backup, which may be entered manually" (’334 Patent, col. 2:15-18). Plaintiff may argue this shows the invention is not strictly limited to a scannable "image" but covers other forms of location-specific codes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and specifically describes the use of a physical "barcode 80 placed inside customer home 60" which is read using a "photographic scanner" on a smartphone (’334 Patent, col. 4:33-41; col. 8:5-10). Defendants may argue these specific descriptions limit the term to a visually scanned, physical code.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement such as inducement or contributory infringement. The claims are for direct infringement by the named Defendants who allegedly "creation, use, sale, and offers to sell Handlr's mobile and web applications." (Compl. ¶9, p. 13).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a strong allegation of willful infringement. The basis includes Defendants' alleged pre-patent-issuance knowledge of the technology through a 2012 licensing agreement for Plaintiff's system (Compl. ¶¶11-12), and alleged post-issuance knowledge via three separate notice letters sent in 2016 and 2017 (Compl. ¶23). The complaint explicitly alleges that Defendants' conduct is "willful and with knowledge of the '334 Patent." (Compl. ¶27).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the "identification code" and "check-in... notification" feature of the accused Handlr's System meet the specific claim requirement of reading an "image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site"? The case may turn on whether the accused system requires a provider to interact with a location-specific physical object, or if it uses a less tangible verification method like geofencing or a simple software login.
  • A second central issue will be the interplay between the patent and contract claims. The complaint alleges a prior licensing relationship and the development of a competing product in breach of that license. This history provides a strong narrative and factual basis for the willfulness allegation, raising the key question of whether Defendants' alleged infringement was not merely accidental but an intentional and willful act, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages.