DCT

6:25-cv-01626

Elanco Animal Health Inc v. Pet Iq LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-01626, M.D. Fla., 09/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in the district, where it has transacted business and committed alleged acts of infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Pet Armor Extend line of flea and tick collars infringes a patent related to a specific composition for a slow-release, active-compound-containing moulded body for use on animals.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns polymer-based animal collars formulated to provide long-term, controlled release of parasiticides, a significant product category in the companion animal health market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant previously and unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit in an Inter Partes Review (IPR2022-00304). This prior challenge may estop the Defendant from raising certain invalidity defenses in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-29 ’122 Patent Priority Date
2011-03-22 ’122 Patent Issue Date
2012 Plaintiff's SERESTO® collars first approved for use
2021-12-12 Defendant files Inter Partes Review against the ’122 Patent
2022-03-17 Defendant offers to pay Plaintiff for use of its EPA data
2025-07 Plaintiff becomes aware of Defendant’s EPA registration for accused products
2025-08-13 Defendant allegedly begins offering Accused Products for sale
2025-09-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,910,122 - "Active Compound-Containing Solid Moulded Bodies for External use Against Parasites on Animals"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,910,122, "Active Compound-Containing Solid Moulded Bodies for External use Against Parasites on Animals," issued March 22, 2011 (’122 Patent). (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a drawback of prior art animal collars that required the use of phthalate esters as plasticizers to achieve the desired physical properties. These phthalates are identified as being "not entirely harmless toxicologically" and posing a risk of "environmental contamination." (’122 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by providing a new composition for moulded bodies that replaces phthalates with more environmentally compatible and less toxic ingredients, specifically fatty acid esters of polyhydric alcohols like propylene glycol. (’122 Patent, col. 1:29-38). This novel formulation is intended to allow for the effective, long-term migration of active compounds from the polymer matrix to the animal's coat without the toxicological and environmental issues associated with prior art plasticizers. (’122 Patent, col. 2:46-49).
  • Technical Importance: The described technical approach sought to provide a safer composition for long-acting antiparasitic collars without negatively impacting the product's physical characteristics or its efficacy. (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 3. (Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A solid moulded body for external use against parasites on animals, comprising a mixture of:
    • a. Polyvinyl chloride;
    • b. Propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate at a concentration of from about 5% to about 17.5% by weight;
    • c. Imidacloprid at a concentration of from about 1% to about 20% by weight; and
    • d. Flumethrin at a concentration of from about 1% to about 20% by weight. (’122 Patent, col. 14:1-12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the Pet Armor Extend flea and tick collars for dogs and cats. (Compl. ¶50).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Pet Armor Extend collars are described as providing eight-month prevention and treatment of fleas and ticks. (Compl. ¶33, Ex. I). The complaint alleges the products use the "same active ingredients used in SERESTO®" and are marketed as a lower-priced alternative to Plaintiff's patented product, which could lead to "irreparable price erosion." (Compl. ¶¶30, 35). The complaint includes an image of the Accused Product packaging, which lists its active ingredients. (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’122 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A solid moulded body for external use against parasites on animals, the solid moulded body comprising a mixture of: The accused Pet Armor Extend collars are solid moulded bodies for external use on animals. ¶50 col. 14:1-4
a. Polyvinyl chloride; The complaint alleges on information and belief that the accused product includes this polymer matrix. ¶55 col. 14:5
b. Propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate at concentration of from about 5% to about 17.5% by weight of the solid moulded body; The complaint alleges on information and belief that the accused product includes this plasticizer within the claimed concentration range. ¶55 col. 14:6-8
c. Imidacloprid at concentration of from about 1% to about 20% by weight of the solid moulded body; and, The accused product label states it contains 10.0% Imidacloprid, which falls within the claimed range. ¶¶52-53, p. 12 col. 14:9-10
d. Flumethrin at concentration of from about 1% to about 20% by weight of the solid moulded body. The accused product label states it contains 4.5% Flumethrin, which falls within the claimed range. ¶¶52-53, p. 12 col. 14:11-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "about" for the concentration ranges of the active ingredients may be a point of discussion, though the accused product's stated percentages of 4.5% and 10.0% appear to fall well within the respective "about 1% to about 20%" ranges.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be the actual composition of the accused product's inactive ingredients. The complaint provides direct evidence from product labeling for the presence and concentration of the active ingredients, Imidacloprid and Flumethrin. (Compl. ¶52). However, the allegations that the product contains the specific polymer ("Polyvinyl chloride") and plasticizer ("Propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate") required by claim 1 are made "upon information and belief." (Compl. ¶55). The case may turn on what discovery reveals about the material composition of the accused collars.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "Propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate"
  • Context and Importance: This term recites the specific non-phthalate plasticizer that is a central component of the claimed invention. As the complaint's allegation regarding this element is based on information and belief, its precise definition will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant’s choice of plasticizer will be a key factual determination for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to this component as part of a class of "fatty acid esters of polyhydric alcohols." (’122 Patent, col. 1:39-41). It also provides a trade name example, "Miglyol 840 (propylene glycol octanoate decanoate)," which may be argued to inform the scope of the claimed term to include similar or equivalent commercial formulations. (’122 Patent, col. 2:19-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a specific chemical name rather than a broader functional or class-based definition. A party could argue that this choice limits the claim scope to the precise chemical structure of propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate, potentially excluding other similar but chemically distinct fatty acid esters.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of method claim 2. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant sells the accused collars with the intent and direction that customers will use them for their intended purpose—controlling parasites on animals—which allegedly constitutes practicing the patented method. (Compl. ¶¶51, 56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the ’122 Patent, evidenced by its prior filing of an IPR proceeding (IPR2022-00304) seeking to invalidate the patent. (Compl. ¶¶25, 58). The complaint also asserts that the filing of the lawsuit itself provides notice for any continuing or future infringement to be considered willful. (Compl. ¶59).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of compositional proof: what evidence will emerge to substantiate the complaint’s "information and belief" allegations that the accused collars are made with the specific polymer ("Polyvinyl chloride") and non-phthalate plasticizer ("Propylene glycol dicaprylocaprate") recited in Claim 1? The provided evidence centers on the active ingredients, leaving the composition of the collar matrix as a central, unresolved factual question.
  • A second key question will relate to willfulness: given the defendant’s undisputed pre-suit knowledge of the ’122 Patent stemming from its own unsuccessful IPR challenge, a central legal issue will be whether its alleged infringement, if proven, was willful. The outcome of this question could significantly impact potential damages.