Handson Equine LLC v. PAT Your Pet

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Handson Equine, LLC d/b/a Handson Gloves (Texas)
  • Defendant: Pat Your Pet (Ukraine)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02570, D. Colo., 09/10/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado based on Defendant's offers for sale and actual sales of the accused products to consumers within the state, including through e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s animal grooming gloves infringe its U.S. design patent for an animal bathing and grooming glove.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet care market, concerning the specific ornamental design of gloves used for bathing and grooming animals.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its patent rights on at least two occasions prior to filing suit: once via written correspondence in October 2017, and again through infringement reports on Amazon.com, which allegedly resulted in contact from Defendant's legal counsel acknowledging notice.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D858,906 - ANIMAL BATHING AND GROOMING GLOVE

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D858,906, issued September 3, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The objective is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a grooming glove (D’906 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a glove as depicted in its figures (D’906 Patent, Claim). Key visual features include a palm side covered with a pattern of circular scrubbing nubs and finger sections covered with distinct rectangular scrubbing pads (D’906 Patent, Fig. 1). The back of the glove features a textured surface and a fastening strap at the wrist, with the description clarifying that gapped lines represent stitching (D’906 Patent, Fig. 2; Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented design have received multiple industry awards, suggesting the design has achieved commercial recognition (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for an animal bathing and grooming glove, as shown and described."
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual depictions in Figures 1 and 2 of the patent, which show the front and rear perspective views of the glove design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "grooming gloves" sold in the United States under the "Pat Your Pet" brand name (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). These are referred to collectively as "the Accused Product" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as being used for animal bathing and grooming (Compl. ¶16). It alleges that Defendant sells these products through various e-commerce sites, including Chewy.com and Amazon.com, to consumers in Colorado and elsewhere in the U.S. (Compl. ¶6, ¶15). The complaint characterizes the accused product as a "knock off" intended to copy Plaintiff's design and confuse consumers (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this case involves a design patent, the infringement analysis does not rely on a traditional element-by-element claim chart. Instead, infringement is determined by comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product to the design claimed in the patent.

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s activities of making, using, and selling the Accused Product constitute direct infringement of the ’906 Patent (Compl. ¶20). The central factual allegation is that the accused grooming gloves "incorporate the designs claimed in the ‘906 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint states that visual depictions of the accused products are provided in its exhibits, which are used as the basis for the infringement claim (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The dispositive issue for infringement will be whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs of grooming gloves, would be deceived into believing the accused Pat Your Pet glove is the same as the Handson Gloves patented design. This requires a side-by-side comparison of the overall visual effect of the two designs.
  • Role of Functional Elements: A potential point of dispute is whether certain features of the claimed design are primarily functional rather than ornamental. The court may be asked to determine if features like the shape, size, and arrangement of the scrubbing nubs are dictated by their function, which could limit the scope of the design patent protection and affect the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this is a design patent case, the "claim" is defined by the patent's drawings rather than by text. Consequently, traditional claim construction of specific terms is not the central issue. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the overall ornamental design of the accused product to the design claimed in the patent's figures. The primary legal test is the "ordinary observer" test, which is a question of fact based on visual comparison.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "knowingly and intentional," "willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶18, ¶21). The factual basis for this allegation includes:
  • Direct written notice of Plaintiff's "exclusive rights to the design" sent to Defendant on October 24, 2017 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Plaintiff’s reports of infringement to Amazon.com, which allegedly resulted in Defendant's product listings being temporarily removed (Compl. ¶16).
  • An alleged communication from Defendant's legal counsel to Plaintiff, which "acknowledg[ed] that Defendant was on notice of Handson Gloves' patent rights" (Compl. ¶16).
  • The allegation that Defendant intentionally copied the design as a "knock off" (Compl. ¶14).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to the following questions:

1. A question of visual identity: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's "Pat Your Pet" glove substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’906 Patent? The outcome will hinge on a direct visual comparison in the context of prior art designs.
2. A question of scope: To what extent, if any, are the specific visual features of the patented glove design—such as the pattern of scrubbing nubs—dictated by function? The court’s determination of which elements are ornamental versus functional will be critical in defining the scope of the patent's protection.
3. A question of intent: Do the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit notice, including direct correspondence and alleged acknowledgment by Defendant's counsel, establish that any infringement was willful? The answer will determine Plaintiff's eligibility for enhanced damages.