DCT
1:25-cv-21710
The Kyjen Company, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Ltd Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations
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 (China / other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21710, S.D. Fla., 04/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in the Southern District of Florida, constituting acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell counterfeit pet products that infringe utility and design patents related to interactive pet puzzle feeders and board games.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves interactive pet toys designed to provide mental stimulation and encourage slower eating by requiring pets to solve puzzles to access treats.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. The action is brought against a large group of foreign e-commerce operators, identified under seal in Schedule A, a common procedural posture for combating online counterfeit sales.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | Plaintiff launched its Outward Hound Products (approx.) |
| 2007-12-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 Priority Date |
| 2012-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 Issue Date |
| 2013-02-12 | U.S. Design Patent No. D676,202 Issue Date |
| 2013-02-19 | U.S. Design Patent No. D676,619 Issue Date |
| 2014-05-27 | U.S. Design Patent Nos. D705,999 & D706,000 & D706,001 Issue Date |
| 2014-06-03 | U.S. Design Patent No. D706,494 Issue Date |
| 2016-05-03 | U.S. Design Patent No. D755,446 Issue Date |
| 2016-10-18 | U.S. Design Patent No. D769,546 Issue Date |
| 2017-06-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,756,835 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2017-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,756,835 Issue Date |
| 2018-11-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D833,086 Issue Date |
| 2025-04-14 | 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 board games that are more durable and easier to clean than prior art versions made from materials like wood or fabric, which are susceptible to damage from biting, scratching, and saliva. (’804 Patent, col. 1:36-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pet puzzle game constructed from a durable, washable polymeric material. It comprises a game board with tracks containing hidden cavities for treats. A pet must first remove a central, gripable "pet board game detail" that acts as a lock, which then allows the pet to slide separate game covers along the tracks to uncover the treats. (’804 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-col. 3:4). This sequential puzzle is designed to be both challenging for the pet and easy for the owner to manufacture and maintain.
- Technical Importance: The use of cost-efficient manufacturing methods like thermoforming for polymeric materials enabled the creation of complex, standardized, and durable pet-safe designs that were an improvement over less resilient materials. (’804 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶62).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include a game board with a plurality of tracks, each track having multiple cavities below it; movable game covers that slide along the tracks to cover the cavities; and at least one removable "pet board game detail" that fits into the board to block the movement of the game covers, which itself contains a void and is made of a durable polymeric material with inwardly converging walls. (’804 Patent, col. 11:36-col. 12:22).
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 increase the complexity of pet puzzle games, noting that prior art, including the '804 Patent, did not provide for certain multi-step challenges involving interlocking components. (’835 Patent, col. 1:23-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered, circular board game featuring several distinct mechanisms a pet must manipulate in sequence. A central spinning top has a single notch that must be aligned with one of several tracks to grant access. However, the spinning top is itself locked in place by at least three rotatable "fin pieces" or flippers. The pet must first learn to rotate the fins outward to unlock the spinner, then rotate the spinner to the desired track, and finally slide blocks within that track to find a treat. (’835 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The invention creates a higher-level cognitive challenge for pets by requiring a series of different, dependent actions, moving beyond simple sliding or lifting tasks to a more complex, sequential puzzle. (’835 Patent, col. 2:11-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶62).
- Claim 1 requires a multi-layered board game comprising: a multi-part plastic base with grooved tracks and compartments; movable circular blocks that slide within the tracks; a top spinning piece that rotates to selectively block or allow access to the tracks via a notch; at least three rotatable "fin pieces" that can conceal treats and also be positioned to prevent the top spinning piece from moving; and non-slip feet. (’835 Patent, col. 3:32-col. 4:9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products generally as "Counterfeit Products" sold on various "Defendant Internet Stores" hosted on platforms like Temu, Amazon, and eBay. (Compl. ¶¶4-5). Specific examples pictured are titled "1pc Interactive Slow Feeder Puzzle Toy" and "Dog Puzzle Toys Turntable Slow Feeder." (Compl. pp. 22-23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are interactive puzzle feeders for pets that require the animal to manipulate various components to access hidden food. (Compl. pp. 22-23). The complaint alleges these are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's "Outward Hound Products" that are sold online to trade on the goodwill and reputation established by Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶6). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison showing the accused "Interactive Slow Feeder Puzzle Toy" next to the elements of Claim 1 of the '804 Patent. (Compl. p. 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'804 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 board game with tracks and cavities for hiding pet treats. | ¶62, p. 22 | col. 2:47-59 |
| two game covers being movably arranged along and engaging each of said tracks to facilitate covering each one of said cavities; and | The accused product has game pieces that are described as sliding along the tracks to cover the cavities. | ¶62, p. 22 | col. 2:65-col. 3:4 |
| 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, said game covers comprising a body or body portion having outer walls... and an inwardly protruding void... | The accused product includes a central, bone-shaped piece that can be removed by the pet and functions to block the sliding game covers. | ¶62, p. 22 | col. 2:59-64 |
| 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 removable pieces have tapered walls. | ¶62, p. 22 | col. 3:36-44 |
'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 plastic game with grooved tracks and compartments. | ¶62, p. 23 | col. 3:36-40 |
| 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 circular blocks that slide within the tracks to conceal or reveal treats. | ¶62, p. 23 | col. 3:59-64 |
| c) Indented compartments in the tracks to allow kibble or treats to be inserted therein and be covered by the blocks; | The accused product's tracks are alleged to contain compartments for holding treats. | ¶62, p. 23 | col. 4:1-3 |
| 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 that rotates to align with and provide access to one track at a time. | ¶62, p. 24 | col. 4:25-32 |
| 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 has rotating "fin" pieces that allegedly both cover treat compartments and can be positioned to lock the central spinning piece. | ¶62, p. 24 | col. 4:6-12 |
| f) Rubber or non-slip material feet located on the underside of the first base piece to prevent the board game from sliding... | The accused product is alleged to have non-slip feet on its underside. | ¶62, p. 24 | col. 4:5-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute for the '804 Patent concerns the limitation "pet board game detail having a body fitting into each of said tracks." The patent's own embodiment appears to show this detail fitting into a central cavity that blocks the tracks, not into the tracks themselves. (’804 Patent, Fig. 1). The defense may argue the accused product's central blocker, which also sits in a central cavity, does not literally "fit into" the tracks as claimed, raising a question of claim scope. A similar chart in the complaint shows an accused "Dog Puzzle Toys Turntable Slow Feeder" against the limitations of Claim 1 of the '835 Patent, highlighting its alleged multi-component functionality. (Compl. p. 23).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question for the '835 Patent will be whether the accused product's "fin pieces" perform the dual function required by claim 1(e): not only concealing treats but also being "positioned to prevent the top spinning piece from moving." The complaint's visual evidence is insufficient to confirm this locking interaction, which will likely require further evidence regarding the product's mechanical operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: '804 Patent
- The Term: "pet board game detail having a body fitting into each of said tracks"
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the '804 patent may depend on this term's construction. The accused product features a central locking piece that blocks the tracks but does not appear to physically sit inside them. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the claim language and both the patent's embodiment and the accused product's design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a functional interpretation, suggesting "fitting into" means engaging with the tracks in a way that accomplishes the blocking function described in the specification: "When the pet game cover 8 is positioned in the cavity 7, the ability to move the game covers 9A and 9B is blocked." (’804 Patent, col. 3:2-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a strict, structural meaning, pointing out that the patent's own figures and description show the "detail" (8) being placed in a separate "cavity" (7), not the "track" (5). (’804 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:59-61). This inconsistency between the claim language and the specification could be used to argue for a narrow construction that the accused product does not meet.
Patent: '835 Patent
- The Term: "prevent the top spinning piece from moving"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the '835 patent's purported advance over the prior art. The case for infringement will likely require proof that the accused product's "fin pieces" perform this specific locking function, rather than merely covering treat compartments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that when the flippers are rotated inward, "a portion thereof will hold the spinning center top in place." (’835 Patent, col. 3:1-3). A party may argue this supports a broad reading where any physical obstruction constitutes "preventing" movement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "prevent" could be construed to require a more absolute or intentional locking mechanism, not just incidental contact. A party might argue that if the spinner can still be moved with some force, its movement is not truly "prevented" as required by the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶60). The facts primarily support direct infringement by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "knowingly and willfully" used Plaintiff's IP. (Compl. ¶61). The complaint asserts this knowledge arises from the popularity and success of the Outward Hound products and that Defendants acted in bad faith or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights. (Compl. ¶¶44-45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the '804 patent will be one of claim scope versus the specification: can the phrase "detail... fitting into each of said tracks" be construed to cover a central locking piece that sits in a separate cavity, especially when the patent's own drawings depict such an arrangement? This raises fundamental questions about the intended breadth and clarity of the claim.
- A key evidentiary question for the '835 patent will be one of technical function: does the Plaintiff possess evidence to prove that the accused products' rotatable "fin pieces" perform the specific dual function of both hiding treats and mechanically "prevent[ing] the top spinning piece from moving," as required by the claim?
- Given the procedural posture of a "Schedule A" complaint against numerous foreign online sellers, a practical threshold question is whether any defendant will appear to contest the allegations, or if the case will be resolved through default judgments based on the infringement theories presented in the complaint.