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 (jurisdiction not specified, alleged to be primarily China-based)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-24193, S.D. Fla., 09/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of infringement in the district, conduct substantial business there, and have targeted sales to Florida residents through interactive online stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, a network of online e-commerce operators, are selling counterfeit pet products that infringe Plaintiff's registered copyright.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the design of interactive pet puzzle feeders and slow-feeder bowls, a market segment focused on animal enrichment and health.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the asserted copyright.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-01 Plaintiff launched its Outward Hound Products
2023-07-06 U.S. Copyright Registration for "Lickin' Layers"
2025-09-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

The complaint does not identify any patents-in-suit or make any allegations of patent infringement. The sole cause of action is for copyright infringement related to U.S. Copyright Office Registration No. VA 2-360-277 (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 45). Therefore, a patent-specific analysis is not applicable based on the provided complaint.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Dog Puzzle Feeder, Interactive Dog Puzzle Game and Slow Feeder Bowl" products sold by numerous online storefronts operating on platforms such as Walmart.com (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's "Outward Hound Products" which include innovative dog games, toys, and slow feeder dog bowls (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 19). The listings for the accused products describe them as pet slow food bowls with a "puzzle maze design" intended to control a pet's eating speed and promote healthy digestion (Compl. p. 11).
  • The complaint provides screenshots from defendants' online stores, such as one from "DOE 2's Listing," which advertises the accused product using a photograph of the feeder with a dog (Compl. p. 11).
  • Plaintiff alleges Defendants operate as a network of counterfeiters, using nearly identical product descriptions and advertising images across different storefronts to sell the exact same product, suggesting a common source (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 35). The complaint supports this with a side-by-side comparison of listings from "DOE 2" and "DOE 4," which use the same photograph and largely identical "About this item" text (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement. The infringement analysis is based on copyright law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have directly copied, or created works that are substantially similar to, its registered copyright for the "Lickin' Layers" product, identified as U.S. Copyright Office Registration No. VA 2-360-277 (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 48).

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products are unauthorized reproductions or derivative works of Plaintiff's copyrighted design (Compl. ¶ 48). The complaint presents a direct visual comparison, placing a screenshot of a "Listing on Defendant Online Store of Infringing Product" next to a screenshot of the "Genuine Outward Hound Product covered by U.S. Copyright Office Registration No. VA 2-360-277" to illustrate the alleged similarity (Compl. p. 15). This side-by-side comparison highlights the visual resemblance between the accused product and Plaintiff's copyrighted work (Compl. p. 15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not assert any patent claims, there are no claim terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not use patent-specific terms for indirect infringement but alleges that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly import, develop, design, manufacture, distribute, market, offer to sell and/or sell" the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶4). It further alleges that Defendants' actions constitute aiding, abetting, or contributing to counterfeiting (Prayer for Relief ¶1(c)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful, knowing, and intentional, or undertaken with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶44). The basis for this allegation includes Defendants' alleged prior knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the copyright and the fame and success of the Outward Hound products (Compl. ¶43). Plaintiff seeks enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement based on this alleged willfulness (Prayer for Relief ¶4).

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

  • A core issue will be the scope of copyright protection: can Plaintiff establish that its copyright registration for the "Lickin' Layers" product covers creative, expressive elements that are physically or conceptually separable from the product's purely utilitarian or functional aspects as a pet feeder?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of substantial similarity: assuming the copyright is valid, does the design of the accused products incorporate a sufficient quantity and quality of the protected expressive elements to be deemed "substantially similar" in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
  • A threshold procedural question will concern personal jurisdiction and enforcement: can Plaintiff successfully demonstrate that each of the numerous, often pseudonymous foreign e-commerce operators has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to be subject to the court's jurisdiction, and can any resulting judgment be effectively enforced against them?