Kyjen Co LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The Kyjen Company, LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: The Individual, Corporation, Limited Liability Company, Partnership, and/or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
• Case Identification: 25:cv-61820, S.D. Fla., 09/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant committed acts of infringement in the district, conducts substantial business in the district by operating interactive e-commerce stores, and targets sales to Florida residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet puzzle feeders and slow feeder bowls infringe patents related to interactive pet game boards and ornamental pet bowl designs.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to pet enrichment products, specifically puzzle feeders and slow-feeder bowls designed to moderate a pet's eating speed and provide mental stimulation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-01-01	Plaintiff launches its Outward Hound Products
2007-12-14	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804
2012-11-27	U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 Issues
2013-09-15	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D705,999
2014-05-27	U.S. Design Patent No. D705,999 Issues
2025-09-15	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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804, "PET GAME BOARD DETAIL AND BOARD GAME," issued November 27, 2012 (’804 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes prior art pet board games as often being made from materials like wood or fabric, which are expensive to produce, difficult to clean, and not durable against biting and scratching from pets ( ’804 Patent, col. 1:31-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a pet game comprised of a game board and removable "pet game cover" pieces made from a durable, washable polymeric material. The covers are designed with an "inwardly protruding void" that is well-suited for hiding treats and is shaped to be easily gripped by a pet's mouth, allowing for standardized, interchangeable components across different game boards ( ’804 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-63).
• Technical Importance: The described approach allows for the cost-efficient production of durable, hygienic, and modular pet puzzle toys with interchangeable components ( ’804 Patent, col. 1:47-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted; however, Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A game board comprising a plurality of spaced apart tracks.
  • Within each track, two first cavities and a second cavity located between the first cavities.
  • Two game covers movably arranged along each of the tracks to cover the cavities.
  • At least one "pet board game detail" (a removable piece) having a body that fits into the tracks.
  • The pet board game detail has an "inwardly protruding void" and outer walls that converge from the lower end to the top end.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

---

U.S. Design Patent No. D705,999 S - PET BOWL

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D705,999 S, "PET BOWL," issued May 27, 2014 (’999 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While not explicitly stated in a design patent, the context for such products is to address the problem of pets eating too quickly, which can lead to health issues. The design creates obstacles to slow down food consumption.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl. The claimed design consists of a circular bowl containing a single, continuous, inwardly-spiraling channel that forms a maze-like obstacle for the pet ('999 Patent, FIGS. 1, 6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's figures.
• The claim is for "The ornamental design for a pet bowl, as shown and described" ('999 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products" sold on e-commerce storefronts, such as the "Defendant Internet Store" on the Walmart.com platform (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5). A specific example provided is the "Dog Slow Feeder Iinteractive Dog Puzzle Game Toy 3 Layers Puzzle Puppy Feeder" (Compl. ¶45, p. 12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is a multi-level interactive puzzle feeder for pets (Compl. ¶45). The product's online listing suggests it functions to provide mental stimulation and slow down a pet's eating by requiring the pet to manipulate different layers or components to access food or treats (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges that such products are sold by counterfeiters who trade on the goodwill of Plaintiff's "Outward Hound" brand, which has become "enormously popular" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 18). A visual in the complaint shows the accused product, a "Dog Slow Feeder Interactive Dog Puzzle Game," which appears to be a multi-layered puzzle toy (Compl. ¶45, p. 12).

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	The accused product is a multi-layered pet game that appears to contain channels or guides in which puzzle pieces move.	¶45	col. 12:32-33
wherein, within each of said tracks there are two first cavities and a second cavity in between said first cavities said cavities extending below each of said tracks	The accused product is described as a "3 Layers Puzzle" and appears to have recessed areas beneath movable components for holding treats.	¶45	col. 12:33-36
two game covers being movably arranged along and engaging each of said tracks to facilitate covering each one of said cavities	The multi-layered construction of the accused product suggests components that can be moved or rotated to cover and uncover treat compartments.	¶45	col. 12:36-39
and at least one pet board game detail having a body fitting into each of said tracks... arranged with an inwardly protruding void	The complaint shows Plaintiff's "Lickin' Layers" product, which includes a removable central piece, and accuses the defendant of selling a counterfeit version.	¶19; p. 13	col. 12:39-49

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "track," which is primarily depicted in the patent as a straight channel ( ’804 Patent, FIG. 1), can be construed to read on the apparently circular or rotational layered mechanisms of the accused product. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of Plaintiff's "Lickin Layers Dog Toy" and the accused product, which may be used to argue for a structural correspondence (Compl. p. 13).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the actual mechanical operation of the accused product. A key question for the court will be whether discovery reveals that the accused product's layers and pieces function as "movably arranged" "game covers" that engage "tracks" in the manner required by the claim.

’999 Patent Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint broadly alleges that Defendant sells "Infringing Products," including slow feeder dog bowls (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 19). However, the complaint does not provide a visual representation of an accused product that appears to embody the specific ornamental spiral design claimed in the ’999 Patent. Analysis of infringement would require identification of such a product. The complaint does include a visual of Plaintiff's authentic "Lickin' Layers" product, which is a puzzle feeder rather than a slow-feed bowl (Compl. ¶19, p. 6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "track" (from ’804 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The definition of "track" is critical to determining the scope of the claim. The patent's figures exclusively show linear, straight tracks. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product appears to use a rotational or circular mechanism, raising the question of whether such a structure falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the term "track" to a linear path. Plaintiff may argue that "track" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a path or course on which something moves, which could include a circular path.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the embodiments shown in the figures, stating, "The straight tracks 5 and 6, on the upper side 4 of the board 1, are both in parallel with the shorter sides" ( ’804 Patent, col. 2:50-53). A defendant may argue this repeated emphasis on "straight tracks" in the detailed description limits the claim term to the disclosed linear embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "distributes, markets, offers to sell and sells" the infringing products through online platforms (Compl. ¶4). These allegations may support a claim for induced infringement, on the theory that Defendant’s product listings and descriptions on platforms like Walmart.com instruct end-users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff’s rights" (Compl. ¶40). It further alleges Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership and the success of the Outward Hound products and proceeded to sell "counterfeit" versions in bad faith (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 46). These allegations form the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "track," as disclosed in the ’804 Patent with reference to linear sliding mechanisms, be construed to cover the multi-layered, rotational components of the accused puzzle feeder? The outcome of claim construction for this term may be dispositive for the utility patent infringement claim.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: For the design patent claims, the case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can identify and present evidence of an accused product that is "substantially similar" in ornamental appearance to the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The current complaint does not contain such evidence for the ’999 Patent.
• A significant practical question will be one of enforcement and discovery: The complaint identifies the defendant as an e-commerce store operator based in China whose identity is concealed (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 30). A central challenge for the litigation may involve establishing personal jurisdiction, effecting service, and obtaining the discovery necessary to fully analyze the technical operation of the accused products.