DCT
0:25-cv-60699
Kyjen Co LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Kyjen Company, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 0:25-cv-60699, S.D. Fla., 04/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ offers to sell and shipment of accused products into the judicial district, as well as operating interactive e-commerce stores targeting consumers in Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores, operating on platforms like Amazon and Temu, sell counterfeit pet toys and feeders that infringe Plaintiff's utility and design patents.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to interactive pet puzzle toys and slow-feeder bowls, which are designed to provide mental stimulation and encourage healthier eating habits for pets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of largely anonymous e-commerce operators, whose identities are filed under seal in a "Schedule A." No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings concerning the asserted patents are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | Plaintiff launched its "Outward Hound Products" |
| 2007-12-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 Priority Date |
| 2012-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 Issued |
| 2017-06-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,756,835 Priority Date |
| 2017-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,756,835 Issued |
| 2025-04-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 - "Pet Game Board Detail and Board Game," issued Nov. 27, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for pet puzzle games that are more durable, easier to clean, and less expensive to produce than existing games made from materials like wood or fabric, which are susceptible to damage from biting, scratching, and saliva (’804 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pet game piece, or "cover," made from a durable and washable polymeric material. The cover is designed with a specific shape that is grippable by a pet's mouth and features an "inwardly protruding void" that creates a relatively large internal space for hiding treats compared to its external dimensions (’804 Patent, Abstract). This design, particularly its tapered shape, also facilitates manufacturing via cost-effective methods like thermoforming and allows a pet to remove the cover by tilting it out of a cavity (’804 Patent, col. 3:42-54).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a standardized, low-cost, and robust game piece that can be mass-produced and used interchangeably across various pet puzzle game boards (’804 Patent, col. 2:54-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’804 Patent, col. 12:36-61; Compl. ¶62).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A game board with a plurality of spaced-apart tracks, each track having two first cavities and a second cavity between them.
- Two game covers movably arranged along the tracks to cover the cavities.
- At least one "pet board game detail" (a removable cover) with a body shaped to be grippable by a pet's mouth.
- The game covers comprise a body with an "inwardly protruding void" to form an open space.
- The body is formed from a durable and washable polymeric material.
- The outer wall portions of the body converge inwardly from the lower end to the top end.
U.S. Patent No. 9,756,835 - "Pet Memory and Agility Exercise Board Game," issued Sep. 12, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to address pet boredom and Canine Cognitive Dysfunction by providing a more challenging puzzle toy. It notes that prior art games, including the one described in the ’804 Patent, lacked the specific combination of interacting mechanisms claimed (’835 Patent, col. 1:10-14, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered, multi-mechanism board game. Its core features include a slidable top piece with a notch that can be aligned to grant access to one of several tracks, moveable blocks that slide within those tracks to cover or reveal treats, and rotatable "fin pieces" that serve a dual purpose: they can swivel to conceal treats and also be positioned to lock the slidable top, preventing it from moving (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-40).
- Technical Importance: The combination of these interdependent parts creates a multi-step puzzle that requires a pet to perform a sequence of different actions (e.g., rotate fins, slide the top, push blocks) to retrieve a reward, thus challenging its memory and problem-solving skills (’835 Patent, col. 2:12-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’835 Patent, col. 3:34-col. 4:9; Compl. ¶62).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A multi-layered game with inset tracks, a slidable top, and moveable blocks.
- A first plastic base piece with grooved tracks and inset compartments, attached to a second plastic base piece.
- A plurality of moveable circular blocks with holes for treat insertion, which slide within the tracks.
- Indented compartments in the tracks for kibble.
- A top spinning piece that rotates on an axis, featuring a notch to allow or impede movement of blocks within the tracks.
- At least three "fin pieces" that slidably rotate to conceal treats and can be positioned to prevent the top piece from moving.
- Rubber or non-slip material feet on the underside.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Counterfeit Products," which include various interactive pet puzzle toys and slow-feeder bowls (Compl. ¶¶1, 4). Specific examples are shown in images from e-commerce listings on platforms such as Temu and eBay (Compl. ¶62, pp. 22-23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's "Outward Hound Products" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges these products are designed to copy the distinctive and innovative features of Plaintiff's games (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). The complaint includes an image of an accused product, a square, green and blue puzzle toy with sliding covers and a removable bone-shaped piece, sold on the Temu e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶62, p. 22). It also includes an image of a circular, multi-colored puzzle toy with a rotating center, sliding blocks, and flipper-style covers, sold on eBay (Compl. ¶62, p. 23). These products are marketed and sold through numerous online stores operated by the Defendants, who are alleged to use tactics to appear as legitimate retailers (Compl. ¶¶5, 29).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’804 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pet board game including a game board comprising: a plurality of spaced apart tracks wherein, within each of said tracks there are two first cavities and a second cavity in between said first cavities extending below each of said tracks; | The accused product is a game board with grooved tracks and cavities underneath, as depicted in the provided image. | ¶62 | col. 2:48-59 |
| two game covers being movably arranged along and engaging each of said tracks to facilitate covering each one of said cavities; | The accused product has two blue pieces that appear to slide along the tracks to cover and uncover the cavities. | ¶62 | col. 2:65-3:2 |
| and at least one pet board game detail having a body fitting into each of said tracks, wherein said body has a height, a width and a length arranged to be gripable by the mouth of a pet, | The accused product includes a removable, bone-shaped piece that appears to fit into a central cavity and is shaped for a pet to grip. | ¶62 | col. 3:18-25 |
| said game covers comprising a body or body portion having outer walls... arranged with an inwardly protruding void to form an open space... wherein said void is formed by having a main portion of the total area exposed by said outer walls provided by wall portions having a limited wall thickness, | The bone-shaped piece shown in the image of the accused product appears to be hollow, forming an internal void for holding treats. | ¶62 | col. 3:18-23 |
| and formed from a durable and washable polymeric material, and wherein said outer wall portions converge inwardly in a direction from said lower end toward the top end. | The accused product is made of plastic, and the bone-shaped piece appears to have tapered side walls. | ¶62 | col. 3:38-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention (’804 Patent):
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on an antecedent basis issue in Claim 1. The claim introduces "two game covers being movably arranged along... tracks" (which appears to correspond to the blue sliders in the accused product). It later describes structural features (e.g., "inwardly protruding void") of "said game covers," but these features are taught in the patent specification as belonging to the separate, removable "pet board game detail" (element 8), not the sliding covers (element 9A/9B) (’804 Patent, col. 2:57-66). This raises the question of whether the claim is indefinite or whether the limitations describing the void and grippable body apply to the sliding pieces or the removable piece, which will be a critical issue for the court.
’835 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) A first plastic base piece with grooved tracks and inset compartments within the tracks, and which is attached via snap fit to a second plastic base piece with grooved track openings; | The accused product is a multi-layered board game with visible grooved tracks and compartments. | ¶62 | col. 3:9-14 |
| b) A plurality of moveable circular blocks with holes in each center for treat insertion and for sliding said blocks within a track and a track opening in the base pieces; | The accused product has multiple circular blocks that appear to be slidable within the tracks and have central holes. | ¶62 | col. 2:60-63 |
| c) Indented compartments in the tracks to allow kibble or treats to be inserted therein and be covered by the blocks; | The tracks in the accused product appear to have recessed areas for placing treats, which can be covered by the sliding blocks. | ¶62 | col. 3:43-46 |
| d) A top spinning piece which slidably rotates on an axis to either impede or allow movement within the grooved tracks via a notch in one side of the top piece; | The accused product features a central spinning piece, though the presence and function of a specific "notch" is not clear from the image alone. | ¶62 | col. 2:55-59 |
| e) At least three fin pieces which slidably rotate on an axis to conceal treats inserted in a track groove, and which fins may be alternately positioned to prevent the top spinning piece from moving; and | The accused product includes multiple flipper-like pieces that rotate to cover treat areas. Their ability to also lock the spinning top is a functional allegation. | ¶62 | col. 2:63-3:2 |
| f) Rubber or non-slip material feet located on the underside of the first base piece to prevent the board game from sliding... | The complaint does not provide a view of the underside of the accused product to verify this feature. | ¶62 | col. 3:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention (’835 Patent):
- Technical Questions: A key dispute may center on the specific functional requirements of the claim. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's "fin pieces" can be "alternately positioned to prevent the top spinning piece from moving," as required by element (e)? The infringement analysis will depend on whether discovery confirms that the accused product's components perform this specific locking function, in addition to concealing treats.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: U.S. 8,316,804
- The Term: "game covers"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis for the ’804 Patent. Claim 1 introduces "two game covers" that are "movably arranged along... tracks," but later applies detailed structural limitations to "said game covers" that the specification appears to attribute to a different component—the removable "pet board game detail." Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim depends on whether these limitations are mapped to the accused sliding pieces or the accused removable piece.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "game covers" is a general descriptor and that the claim as a whole is intended to cover a system including both the sliding covers and the removable "detail," which is also a type of cover.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly distinguishes between "the pet game cover 8" (the removable piece) and "the game covers 9A and 9B" (the sliding pieces) (’804 Patent, col. 2:57-66). A party may argue that because the claim ties the term "game covers" to being "movably arranged along... tracks," the subsequent limitations must apply only to the sliding pieces, which may not possess the claimed "inwardly protruding void." This could support a finding of non-infringement or indefiniteness.
Patent: U.S. 9,756,835
- The Term: "prevent the top spinning piece from moving"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that the "fin pieces" can be positioned to perform this specific function. The interpretation of "prevent" will determine the required efficacy of the locking mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's flippers provide a true locking function or merely incidental obstruction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that when the flippers are rotated inward, "a portion thereof will hold the spinning center top in place" (’835 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:1). A party could argue that any physical obstruction that "holds" or impedes rotation meets this limitation, even if it is not a secure lock.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the word "prevent," which suggests a more definitive function than merely "obstructing" or "holding." A party could argue this requires a mechanism specifically designed to lock the spinning piece, and that incidental contact from the flippers in the accused product is insufficient to meet this functional limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of indirect infringement, stating Defendants’ products "directly or indirectly infringe" the Utility Patents (Compl. ¶60). It further alleges that Defendants import, develop, distribute, and market the "Counterfeit Products" (Compl. ¶4). The factual basis for inducing infringement, such as evidence of specific instructions or advertising that encourages infringing use, is not detailed.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "knowingly and willfully" used the patents and having had "knowledge of (i) Plaintiff’s ownership of the Outward Hound IP, (ii) the fame and incalculable goodwill associated therewith, and (iii) the popularity and success of the Outward Hound Products" (Compl. ¶¶44, 61, 64). The allegations appear to be based on a theory of intentional counterfeiting rather than specific pre-suit knowledge of the patents themselves.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and clarity: For the ’804 Patent, can the term "game covers" in Claim 1 be construed in a way that overcomes the apparent antecedent basis issue, allowing the claim's structural limitations to read on the corresponding components of the accused product without rendering the claim indefinite?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: For the ’835 Patent, does the accused product’s design, particularly its "fin pieces," perform the specific, dual-purpose function of both concealing treats and being positionable to "prevent the top spinning piece from moving," as strictly required by Claim 1?
- A central procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and joinder: Can Plaintiff successfully effect service on the anonymous foreign defendants listed in Schedule A, and will the court agree that these disparate e-commerce operators are sufficiently related to be joined in a single action in the Southern District of Florida?