DCT

1:25-cv-24193

Kyjen Co LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

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 (Primarily People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-24193, S.D. Fla., 09/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate commercial, interactive e-commerce stores that target and conduct substantial business with consumers in Florida, including offering to sell and shipping products into the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators sell counterfeit pet products that infringe upon its utility and design patents covering interactive pet toys and feeders.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves interactive pet puzzle feeders and board games designed to stimulate pets and moderate their eating pace.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a broad action against a large group of unidentified e-commerce operators, a strategy often employed in anti-counterfeiting litigation to combat networks of online sellers who allegedly use aliases to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-01 Plaintiff launches 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
2013-02-12 U.S. Patent No. D676,202 Issued
2014-02-04 U.S. Patent No. D699,009 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. D705,999 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. D706,000 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. D706,001 Issued
2014-06-03 U.S. Patent No. D706,495 Issued
2016-10-18 U.S. Patent No. D769,546 Issued
2018-11-06 U.S. Patent No. D833,086 Issued
2025-09-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804 - PET GAME BOARD DETAIL AND BOARD GAME, issued November 27, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that existing board games for pets were often made from materials that were expensive, prone to damage from biting and scratching (such as wood or fabric), and difficult to clean and sanitize ('804 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a pet board game system and its components, particularly a "pet game cover," manufactured from a durable, washable, and cost-efficient polymeric material ('804 Patent, col. 1:44-53). This cover is designed to be easily gripped by a pet's mouth and features an "inwardly protruding void," which creates a relatively large internal space for hiding treats compared to its external dimensions ('804 Patent, Abstract). These covers are used on a game board with tracks and cavities, allowing the covers to be moved or lifted to reveal hidden rewards ('804 Patent, col. 2:45-67).
  • Technical Importance: The use of thermoformable plastic and a specific design for the game pieces allows for the creation of more complex, durable, and hygienic pet puzzle toys at a lower manufacturing cost compared to prior art alternatives ('804 Patent, col. 1:44-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A pet board game with a game board comprising a plurality of spaced apart tracks, with each track having two first cavities and a second cavity located between them.
    • Two game covers movably arranged along each track to cover the cavities.
    • At least one "pet board game detail" (a movable piece) that fits into the tracks.
    • The detail's body must be gripable by a pet's mouth and comprise game covers with an "inwardly protruding void" to form an open internal space, where the void is formed by thin, inwardly converging outer walls made of a durable, washable polymeric material.

U.S. Design Patent No. D769,546 - PET FEEDER MAT, issued October 18, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '546 Patent protects ornamental appearance rather than addressing a technical problem detailed in the specification.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet feeder mat as depicted in its figures ('546 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a circular mat featuring a series of parallel, raised, wavy ridges across its surface ('546 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products incorporating Plaintiff's distinctive designs have become "enormously popular" and are "broadly recognized by consumers as being sourced from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the group of "Design Patents" collectively, which includes the '546 Patent (Compl. ¶54). The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a pet feeder mat, as shown and described" ('546 Patent, Claim).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Asserted Design Patents

  • U.S. Patent No. D676,202, ANIMAL PAW SHAPED PET TREAT DISPENSING PUZZLE, issued February 12, 2013

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet puzzle toy, the top surface of which is shaped like an animal's paw ('202 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D699,009, PET BOWL, issued February 4, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl featuring internal, maze-like obstructions ('009 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D705,999, PET BOWL, issued May 27, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl with an internal spiral-shaped obstruction ('999 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D706,000, PET BOWL, issued May 27, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl with a series of distinct, abstractly shaped internal obstructions ('000 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D706,001, PET BOWL, issued May 27, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl with petal-like internal obstructions arranged around a central post ('001 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D706,495, PET BOWL, issued June 3, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet bowl with a different configuration of internal, maze-like obstructions ('495 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

  • U.S. Patent No. D833,086, PET FEEDER MAT, issued November 6, 2018

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet feeder mat with a different pattern of wavy ridges compared to the '546 patent ('086 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants of infringing the "Design Patents" collectively (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Counterfeit Products" that are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's "Outward Hound Products" (Compl. ¶¶4, 6). These products are allegedly sold through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" operating on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, and Shein (Compl. ¶¶5, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as pet toys and feeders that mimic the appearance and function of Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶¶55, 62). The complaint provides a screenshot of an accused "Interactive pet puzzle toy" that functions as a game board with slidable covers to hide treats (Compl. p. 21). Another screenshot shows an accused "Anti-Gluttonous Cat Bowl, Anti-Gluttonous Dog Bowl, Slow Feeding Bowl" that copies the ornamental design of one of Plaintiff's slow-feeder products (Compl. ¶55). The complaint alleges Defendants design their online stores to appear as if they are authorized retailers of genuine products (Compl. ¶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... The accused product is an interactive pet puzzle board with tracks and multiple cavities for hiding treats. ¶62; p. 21 col. 2:48-54
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 includes multiple game covers that are shown arranged along tracks and positioned over cavities. ¶62; p. 21 col. 2:65-67
at least one pet board game detail having a body fitting into each of said tracks, The accused product's movable game covers serve as the pet board game detail and are shown fitting within the tracks. ¶62; p. 21 col. 2:58-60
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...an inwardly protruding void... The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide specific details on the shape, internal structure, or material composition of the accused product's game covers. A screenshot shows the external appearance of an accused "Interactive pet puzzle toy." (Compl. p. 21). ¶62; p. 21 col. 3:18-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific board layout of "two first cavities and a second cavity in between said first cavities" for each track. The provided visual evidence of the accused product shows a grid-like arrangement of cavities (Compl. p. 21). A potential dispute may arise over whether this grid arrangement satisfies the more specific linear structure recited in the claim.
    • Technical Questions: A central limitation is the game cover's internal structure, requiring an "inwardly protruding void" formed by walls of "limited wall thickness." The complaint does not contain evidence (such as a cross-section) detailing the internal construction of the accused game covers. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused covers possess this specific structure or are merely solid pieces.

'546 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the Design Patents by presenting a side-by-side visual comparison of a figure from the '546 Patent and a screenshot of an "Exemplary Infringing Product Sold on Defendant Internet Store" (Compl. ¶55). The screenshot depicts a blue, circular "Slow Feeding Bowl" with a pattern of wavy, parallel ridges that appears to embody the ornamental design claimed in the '546 Patent (Compl. ¶55).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test. The core question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs for pet feeders, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the design claimed in the '546 Patent. The analysis may focus on similarities or differences in the number, spacing, curvature, and profile of the ridges.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 8,316,804

  • The Term: "pet board game detail"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary movable component of the claimed game. Its construction will determine the scope of infringing articles, specifically what types of puzzle pieces are covered by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that the shape of the cover can be "easy and cost efficient, changed and modified into any form" ('804 Patent, col. 4:8-10). It also contemplates use as a "stand alone purpose where objects can be hidden e.g. directly on a floor" ('804 Patent, col. 4:5-7).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment consistently depicts the "detail" as a bone-shaped cover (8) and describes its specific dimensions as being arranged to be gripable by a pet ('804 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:58-64). This may support an argument that the term is limited to the disclosed bone shape or functionally similar shapes.

  • The Term: "inwardly protruding void"

    • Context and Importance: This structural feature of the game cover is a key point of novelty described in the patent. Proving that the accused products contain this specific internal structure will be critical to Plaintiff's infringement case.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function of the void as being "well adapted to hide objects S for pets" ('804 Patent, col. 3:27-28), which could support a construction covering any internal hollow space capable of hiding a treat.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides significant detail, describing the void as being formed by "tapered/generally cone shaped" outer walls and having a "limited wall thickness" ('804 Patent, col. 3:35-43; Fig. 2A). This detailed description could support a narrower construction that excludes pieces with, for example, simple cylindrical hollows or thick walls.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly" infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶54, 60). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of either induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶¶56, 64). This allegation is based on Defendants' alleged "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). The pleading further asserts that Defendants acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶45).

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

  • A primary issue in this case will be one of enforcement and evidence: given that the Defendants are alleged to be a diffuse network of foreign e-commerce operators using aliases, can the Plaintiff effectively establish jurisdiction, identify the responsible parties, and obtain the discovery needed to prove the specific technical and ornamental features of the accused products?
  • For the '804 utility patent, a key question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused game board's layout of cavities meet the specific claimed arrangement of "two first cavities and a second cavity in between," and, critically, do the accused game covers contain the claimed "inwardly protruding void" formed by thin, tapered walls, or is there a material difference in their internal construction?
  • For the asserted design patents, the central question will be one of visual deception: would an "ordinary observer" viewing the accused pet feeders be deceived into purchasing them believing they are the Plaintiff's patented designs, or are there sufficient visual differences in the overall ornamental appearance to avoid infringement?