DCT
2:21-cv-00001
Garrouzoo Inc v. Mila Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Garrouzoo, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: MILA International, Inc. (Kentucky)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00001, E.D. Ky., 11/07/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Kentucky as Defendant is a Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s veterinary catheter securement collars infringe patents directed to an apparatus and method for protecting surgical wounds and securing esophagostomy tubes on non-human animals.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to veterinary medical devices designed to improve post-operative care for animals by providing a comfortable and stable alternative to traditional bandaging for feeding tubes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action was initially filed on January 4, 2021. Subsequently, Defendant initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO for both patents-in-suit. The district court case was stayed pending the outcome. The reexaminations concluded on August 29, 2022, resulting in amended claims for both patents, which are the basis for the allegations in this amended complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-11-14 | Earliest Priority Date for '100 and '912 Patents |
| 2013-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,539,912 Issues |
| 2014-06-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,757,100 Issues |
| 2014-09-28 | Defendant allegedly expresses interest in licensing patents |
| 2020-03-02 | Plaintiff sends Defendant a cease and desist letter |
| 2021-01-04 | Plaintiff files initial complaint |
| 2021-10-07 | Court stays case pending reexamination |
| 2022-08-29 | USPTO concludes reexamination proceedings |
| 2022-11-07 | Plaintiff files Amended Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,757,100 - E-TUBE COLLAR, issued June 24, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenges of managing esophagostomy tubes ("e-Tubes") in animals post-surgery. Animals may dislodge tubes by scratching or shaking, leading to wound trauma and infection. Traditional methods like adhesive bandaging can be ineffective and difficult for pet owners to manage, while restrictive devices like Elizabethan collars cause significant discomfort. (’100 Patent, col. 1:12-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a soft, adjustable collar designed to protect the e-Tube insertion site. It features a main body that wraps around the neck, a stitched hole for the tube to pass through, and a strap to hold the external portion of the tube securely against the collar, preventing it from dangling and catching on objects. (’100 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a secure, comfortable, and low-maintenance solution for long-term e-Tube management, improving patient outcomes and reducing reliance on frequent veterinary visits for re-bandaging. (’100 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1, as amended by reexamination proceedings (Compl. ¶37-38).
- Essential elements of amended Claim 1 include:
- A cover for protecting a surgical site wound on a neck of a non-human animal.
- A rectangular main body with a first and second end, a tab with hook and loop fastener material, and fabric on both sides.
- A stitched hole through the main body to allow an esophagostomy tube to pass through and inhibit tearing.
- A strap coupled to the main body, positioned between the hole and one end, configured to secure the tube against the cover.
- A main body that includes a bottom edge with convex curvature.
U.S. Patent No. 8,539,912 - E-TUBE COLLAR, issued September 24, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as its continuation, the ’100 Patent: the risk of injury, infection, and tube dislodgement associated with post-operative e-Tubes in animals, and the deficiencies of prior art solutions. (’912 Patent, col. 1:13-52).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the method of using a protective collar. The core method comprises two steps: inserting the esophagostomy tube through an aperture in the collar's body, and then fastening the collar around the animal's neck using a fastener. (’912 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:29-34).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a standardized, repeatable method for applying a protective device, which can improve the safety and reliability of e-Tube securement compared to less-structured bandaging techniques. (’912 Patent, col. 3:4-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement, inducement, and contributory infringement of at least independent claim 1, as amended by reexamination proceedings (Compl. ¶69, ¶87, ¶113).
- Essential elements of amended Claim 1 include:
- A method of protecting a wound in a neck of a non-human animal.
- Inserting an esophagostomy tube through an aperture in a body of a collar.
- Coupling a fastener to a complementary fastener to fasten the collar around the neck of the animal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant MILA’s “CATHCOLLAR” brand of veterinary e-Tube securement devices, including various SKUs for different animal neck sizes (Compl. ¶30, ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the CATHCOLLAR products as collars used for the "comfortable and secure protection of indwelling esophagostomy catheters" (Compl. ¶42). Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows a fabric collar with a hook-and-loop (Velcro) fastener, an opening for a catheter, and a small flap to cover the catheter channel (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 1; p. 12). A product label states the collar's purpose and provides instructions for use, including wrapping the collar around the neck and positioning the catheter in the channel (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 1).
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly compete with Plaintiff’s own "KITTY KOLLAR®" product and that Defendant launched its product after failed licensing negotiations, suggesting the products serve the same veterinary market segment (Compl. ¶19, ¶23-30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’100 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rectangular main body including a first end and a second end including a tab including hook and loop fastener material... | The CATHCOLLAR product has a main body with two ends and a Velcro tab for fastening. The photograph of the product in use on a cat illustrates this structure. | ¶43-45; p. 9, Fig. 2 | col. 3:23-29 |
| a stitched hole through the main body, the hole designed to allow an esophagostomy tube to pass through... and to inhibit tearing... by including stitching around the hole | The Accused Product allegedly has a "stitched hole" or "keyhole shaped channel" for an e-tube to pass through. A close-up image shows stitching reinforcing this opening. | ¶46-47; p. 12 | col. 3:30-34 |
| a strap coupled to the first side of the main body... configured to secure the esophagostomy tube against the cover | A flap on the CATHCOLLAR is alleged to be the claimed "strap," which covers the tube channel to secure the tube. | ¶51-52; p. 15 | col. 3:35-42 |
| wherein the main body includes a bottom edge extending between the first end and the second end, the bottom edge including convex curvature. | The CATHCOLLAR is alleged to have a curved bottom edge. A product image shows the collar's ergonomic, curved shape. | ¶56-57; p. 17 | Fig. 1-2 |
’912 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| inserting an esophagostomy tube through an aperture in a body of a collar | MILA's customers are alleged to perform this step by passing a tube through the CATHCOLLAR's "aperture." MILA's instructions on the product label direct this use. | ¶74; p. 19, Fig. 1 | col. 6:30-32 |
| coupling a fastener to a complementary fastener to fasten the collar around the neck of the animal. | MILA's customers are alleged to perform this step by wrapping the CATHCOLLAR around an animal's neck and securing it with the Velcro tab, as shown in a product photograph. | ¶75; p. 28 | col. 6:33-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Amended Claim 1 of the ’100 Patent requires both a "rectangular main body" and a "bottom edge including convex curvature." A key dispute may arise over how to reconcile these two terms, as the plain meaning of "rectangular" conflicts with "convex." The interpretation of "rectangular" will be a central issue.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a small flap on the CATHCOLLAR is the "strap" recited in Claim 1 of the ’100 Patent. A potential point of contention is whether this feature meets the claim's specific structural requirements of being "coupled to one of an upper portion and a lower portion" and "fastenable to the other."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rectangular main body" (’100 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused product, like the patent's own figures, has a visibly curved shape. Defendant may argue its product is not "rectangular." The construction of this term is further complicated by the claim's own requirement for a "convex curvature." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could be dispositive of literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification uses the term "rectangular main body" in the summary of the invention (e.g., ’100 Patent, col. 3:23). Plaintiff may argue the term should be interpreted in light of the drawings (FIGS. 1-2), which clearly depict a curved body, suggesting "rectangular" refers to the general, elongated four-sided shape when laid flat, not strict geometric angles.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "rectangular" that deviates from its plain and ordinary geometric meaning. A defendant could argue that without a specific redefinition, the term must be given its standard meaning of a shape with four right angles, which the accused product lacks.
The Term: "strap" (’100 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading of this element depends on a small flap on the accused product qualifying as a "strap." The definition will determine if the product's structure meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may focus on the functional language, arguing that any structure "configured to secure the esophagostomy tube against the cover" (’100 Patent, col. 3:41-42) and coupled as claimed constitutes a "strap," regardless of its size or shape.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not define "strap" beyond its use in the claims and abstract. A defendant may argue that the ordinary meaning implies a more substantial, band-like element than the small retaining flap shown in the complaint's images of the accused product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts induced and contributory infringement of the ’912 method patent. The allegations are based on MILA providing the CATHCOLLAR product along with instructions on its website and product labels that allegedly direct customers (e.g., veterinarians, pet owners) to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶92-94). The complaint further alleges the CATHCOLLAR has no substantial non-infringing use and is especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶119).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint supports this by alleging Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents as early as September 2014, stemming from a trade show encounter and subsequent, but ultimately unsuccessful, license negotiations (Compl. ¶59, ¶77). This alleged pre-suit knowledge, combined with continued sales after receiving a formal cease-and-desist letter in March 2020 (Compl. ¶32), forms the factual basis for the claim of willful and intentional infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and internal consistency: How will the court resolve the apparent tension within Claim 1 of the ’100 Patent between the terms “rectangular main body” and “convex curvature”? The construction of these terms in relation to each other will be pivotal for the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused CATHCOLLAR’s retaining flap, as depicted in the complaint’s visual evidence, possess the specific coupling and fastening characteristics required to meet the “strap” limitation of the ’100 Patent, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch?
- Given the detailed narrative of failed licensing talks followed by the launch of a competing product, a central question regarding damages will be willfulness: Do the facts alleged by Plaintiff—particularly the pre-suit knowledge from 2014—support a finding of objectively reckless conduct by Defendant, which could expose it to a risk of enhanced damages if infringement is found?