DCT

1:17-cv-01991

Pet Check Technology LLC v. Petmethod LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01991, D. Colo., 08/17/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant PetMethod, LLC's principal place of business in Denver, Defendant James Dixon’s residence in Denver, and Defendants' business activities within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ web and mobile application for managing pet care services infringes a patent related to systems for monitoring and verifying pet care visits.
  • Technical Context: The technology provides a system for pet care companies to verify services, such as dog walks, by using a caregiver's mobile device to scan a code at the client's location and track the service via GPS, enhancing accountability for pet owners.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Richard Miller was a former licensee of Plaintiff's system. It is alleged that after this licensing relationship, Miller co-founded Defendant PetMethod, LLC, which launched a competing system. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a letter to Defendants notifying them of their alleged infringement prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’334 Patent
2011-12-23 Defendant Miller signs License Agreement with Plaintiff
2013-11-01 Defendants Miller and Dixon co-found PetMethod, LLC (approx.)
2015-10-20 ’334 Patent Issued
2017-01-01 Plaintiff learns of Defendants' competing system (approx.)
2017-03-07 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendants alleging infringement
2017-08-17 Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that when a client hires a pet care company, the client must "blindly trust that the pet care company will perform the services agreed upon," with no way to verify the arrival time or the duration and distance of a walk (’334 Patent, col. 1:30-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a portable electronic device, such as a smartphone, carried by a pet caregiver. The caregiver uses the device to scan a code (e.g., a barcode) at the client's home to automatically log the start of a visit. The device's GPS then records the path of the walk. At the end of the visit, another scan can log the end time. This data is transmitted to a server, which makes a visit summary, including a map of the walk, available to the client for verification. (’334 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-49).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides pet owners with "real-time status updates" and verifiable proof of service, addressing a lack of accountability in the pet care services industry (’334 Patent, col. 1:50-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31, ¶63).
  • Claim 1 is a system claim comprising several key components:
    • A "pet caregiver portable electronic device" with a geographic location sensing mechanism.
    • A "server" operating a website with user accounts that allows scheduling and stores appointment information.
    • An "image of the pet care customer code" stored on a medium at the appointment site, which is readable by the portable device.
    • Server-side programming to receive the code from the portable device, compare it to a stored code, and if they match, execute a subroutine to store start/end times and GPS location data, and then transmit a "visual map of a walk path" to the customer.
    • Portable device programming to record and transmit GPS locations and to handle situations where a transmission signal is unavailable by storing the time locally and transmitting it later.
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims... including, but not limited to, claim 1," thereby reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is "Defendants' System," a "web and mobile application system to assist dog walkers and pet sitters in managing their businesses," offered by PetMethod, LLC (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants' System is an appointment management platform (Compl. ¶33) that uses mobile phones with "geographic location sensing" (Compl. ¶34). It allegedly allows for scheduling and storing of appointments (Compl. ¶35) and uses an "identification code" to facilitate "check-in and check-out notifications" (Compl. ¶37, ¶39). The system is further alleged to include "GPS tracking for all team members" and to store and transmit start time, end time, and route information for appointments (Compl. ¶38, ¶39). The complaint alleges the system competes directly with Plaintiff's own "Pet Check's System" (Compl. ¶20).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’334 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An appointment management system for a pet care visit Defendants' System includes an appointment management system. ¶33 col. 9:45-47
a pet caregiver portable electronic device including a... geographic location sensing mechanism Defendants' 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. ¶34 col. 9:48-52
a 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 Defendants' System permits scheduling, viewing, and storing appointments that include a distance, a duration, or a route for a scheduled visit. ¶35 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 Defendants' 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. ¶37 col. 10:6-12
the server programmed with instructions for the server processor to receive a transmission of the code initiated by the pet caregiver... compare the received code to the code identifying the pet care customer in the server Defendants' System enables tracking customers and team members to receive check-in and check-out notifications. ¶39 col. 10:16-23
store a pet care visit start time corresponding to a pet care visit start signal transmission Defendants' System includes the capability to store, send and/or receive start time, end time and route information for appointments. ¶38 col. 10:30-35
store data received from the pet caregiver portable electronic device indicating time-sequenced geographic locations of the portable electronic device Defendants' System includes GPS tracking for all team members. ¶39 col. 10:44-50
transmit data to the electronic device of the pet care customer to permit display on a display of the pet care customer electronic device... a visual map of a walk path Defendants' System includes the capability to store, send and/or receive start time, end time and route information for appointments. ¶38 col. 10:52-65
if the transmission signal is unavailable, read and store the time from the clock... and transmit the... stored time from the clock to the server when the transmission signal is available. Defendants' System enables transmission of stored data either immediately, or at a later time if required. ¶40 col. 10:80-87
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the "identification code" as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶37) meets the claim limitation of an "image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site on a medium readable by the portable electronic device" (’334 Patent, col. 10:6-12). The patent's embodiment describes a physical barcode on a magnet or sticker, raising the question of whether the claim scope is limited to such a physically scannable object or if it can read on other verification methods like manual code entry or geofencing.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system provides "check-in and check-out notifications" (Compl. ¶39), but it does not specify if this is achieved by performing the exact sequence required by Claim 1. A key factual dispute may be whether the accused server is programmed to "compare the received code to the code identifying the pet care customer in the server" as a specific precondition to performing the "storing and displaying subroutine" (’334 Patent, col. 10:21-29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "an image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site on a medium"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether this language requires a physical, machine-readable item (like a barcode) to be present at the client's location, or if it can encompass other forms of verification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's preferred embodiment is specific, while the nature of the accused "identification code" is not detailed in the complaint.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions the code can be input "automatically by using the portable device to scan a bar code or other image or object" (’334 Patent, col. 2:7-8), suggesting "image" is not strictly limited to a barcode. It also contemplates manual entry as a backup (’334 Patent, col. 2:15-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the preferred embodiment repeatedly refers to a "barcode 80 placed inside customer home 60" and printed on "magnet strips or a sticker" (’334 Patent, col. 4:35-36; col. 7:51-53). A defendant may argue this context limits the claim to a tangible, scannable object physically located at the site.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for indirect or induced infringement. The allegations focus on Defendants' system as a whole directly infringing the patent (Compl. ¶63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants had knowledge of the ’334 patent (Compl. ¶42, ¶65). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be twofold: (1) an alleged pre-existing business relationship where Defendant Miller was a licensee of Plaintiff's technology (Compl. ¶12-16); and (2) a letter Plaintiff sent to Defendants on March 7, 2017, which allegedly notified them of their infringement (Compl. ¶43). These allegations may support a finding of both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "image of the pet care customer code stored at the pet care appointment site on a medium," which is exemplified in the patent as a physical barcode, be construed to cover the "identification code" used by the accused system, the specific implementation of which is not yet clear?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: does the accused system's check-in and data-logging process perform the specific, multi-step sequence recited in Claim 1—particularly the server-side comparison of a received code against a stored code as a precondition for logging the visit—or is there a material difference in the technical operation?
  • A central question related to damages will be willfulness: given the prior licensing relationship alleged in the complaint and the explicit pre-suit notification letter, what was the Defendants' state of mind regarding potential infringement when developing and selling their competing system?