DCT
1:18-cv-02001
Ourpet's Co v. Caitec Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: OurPet's Company (Colorado)
- Defendant: Caitec Corporation and Hero Dog Toys (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: CHOKEN WELLING LLP; United + States + Patent Trademark Office
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02001, N.D. Ohio, 02/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including the infringing sales, occurred there. The complaint further asserts that the Plaintiff and its evidence are located in the district and that Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction through their business transactions and interactive websites serving Ohio customers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' pet toy infringes a patent related to a fetch and retrieve tossing toy designed to simulate prey with "flapping" appendages.
- Technical Context: The technology is situated in the pet products industry, specifically focusing on interactive dog toys that are designed to appeal to a dog's natural retrieving instincts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff's commercial products embodying the patent are marked as patented. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-27 | '418 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-07-17 | '418 Patent Issued |
| 2018-02-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,220,418 - Fetch and Retrieve Tossing Toy
Issued July 17, 2012 (’418 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in conventional pet toys, such as flying discs that may be difficult for a dog to grasp when they land upside down (’418 Patent, col. 1:31-40). It also notes that simple objects may fail to adequately stimulate an animal's innate retrieving behaviors, which are based on specific biological and sensory instincts (’418 Patent, col. 1:41-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an elongated, tubular pet toy with flexible, wing-like appendages at both ends (’418 Patent, Fig. 1). When the toy is thrown, these "flappable" appendages are designed to create a "visual stimuli similar to that of an injured or downed winged prey," which in turn "triggers the naturally bred fetching instincts of some dog breeds" (’418 Patent, col. 2:7-12). The main body is described as being formed from rotationally molded plastic to be durable and buoyant (’418 Patent, col. 3:1-18).
- Technical Importance: The invention represents an effort to design a pet toy based on "a fundamental understanding of the animal's biological behavior, instincts, unique senses and physical capabilities" to make it more successfully interactive (’418 Patent, col. 1:44-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 14 of the ’418 Patent (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 14 are:
- A linearly elongated, rotationally molded body forming an outer surface having an outer diameter sufficiently small to allow for at least a portion of it to be grasped and carried in a dog's mouth and having a first end opposite a second end about a centerline;
- A first flexible wing connected to the first end;
- A second flexible wing connected to the second end;
- Wherein each wing has a plurality of individual fingered flexible protuberances that are freely flexible and moveable, creating a "flapping" motion when thrown.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this remains a possibility as the case proceeds.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Defendants' allegedly infringing product" without providing a specific brand or model name (Compl. ¶25, ¶33).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendants "manufacture, source, market, and/or sell pet products widely in the pet industry" as competitors to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶23). The functionality of the accused product is not described in detail, but the complaint alleges that it literally infringes each element of claim 14, or alternatively infringes under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the body's manufacturing process (Compl. ¶33). The complaint provides images of the allegedly infringing product in what are identified as Exhibits 2 and 3 (Compl. ¶25). These exhibits are referenced to show the products that are allegedly being made, used, and sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’418 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a linearly elongated, rotationally molded body forming an outer surface... | The complaint alleges the accused product has this feature, but raises the possibility that the body is "injection molded rather than rotationally molded," asserting that this difference would be an equivalence. | ¶33 | col. 4:21-22 |
| having an outer diameter sufficiently small to allow for at least a portion of it to be grasped and carried in a dog's mouth... | The complaint alleges the accused product has a body that can be grasped and carried by a dog. | ¶33 | col. 4:23-26 |
| a first flexible wing, said first flexible wing connected to said first end | The complaint alleges the accused product has a first flexible wing. | ¶33 | col. 4:27-28 |
| a second flexible wing, said second flexible wing connected to said second end | The complaint alleges the accused product has a second flexible wing. | ¶33 | col. 4:29-30 |
| wherein each wing has a plurality of individual fingered flexible protuberances that are freely flexible and moveable, creating a 'flapping' motion when thrown | The complaint alleges the accused product's wings have features that create a 'flapping' motion when thrown. | ¶33 | col. 4:31-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint preemptively identifies a key potential dispute regarding the manufacturing process of the toy's body. It raises the question of whether an "injection molded" body, if found in the accused product, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed "rotationally molded" body, thereby infringing under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶33).
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the scope of the term "individual fingered flexible protuberances." A question for the court could be whether the structures on the accused product's wings, as depicted in the complaint’s exhibits, meet this limitation as it is described and defined in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rotationally molded"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the Plaintiff has explicitly signaled it as a potential point of non-literal infringement, suggesting the accused product may be manufactured via a different process (Compl. ¶33). The construction of this term will likely determine whether literal infringement is possible or if the analysis must proceed under the doctrine of equivalents.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of evidence supporting a broader interpretation. The patent specification appears to consistently use the term without offering alternative definitions for plastic molding processes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the body as "rotationally molded," linking this process to specific functional advantages like forming a "durable biting surface," a "hollow double wall," and achieving "flotation if placed in water" (’418 Patent, col. 3:1-18, col. 4:21-22). A party could argue these stated benefits limit the claim to the specific rotational molding process.
The Term: "individual fingered flexible protuberances"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the structure of the "wings" is fundamental to the claimed "'flapping' motion" that allegedly stimulates a dog's prey instinct. The definition will be key to determining whether the accused product's wing design infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "protuberances," which could be argued to encompass a wide variety of flexible, finger-like extensions, not just the specific ones shown in the patent's figures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description refers to the appendages as comprising "individual fingered flexible cloth protuberances" (’418 Patent, col. 2:3-4). An accused infringer may argue that this language, combined with the depiction of fabric-like strips in the patent's figures, limits the scope of the term to cloth-based structures and not, for example, integrally molded plastic flaps.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement against the Defendants. The factual basis asserted is the act of "offering for sale and selling their infringing products to dealers at wholesale prices who have, and will continue to, offer them for sale and sell them to end users" (Compl. ¶35).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendants had "full knowledge of the Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶36). This knowledge is alleged to stem from Plaintiff's practice of marking its "Flappy®" product line as patented and publicly listing the patent on its corporate website (Compl. ¶22, ¶5:1-3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of technical equivalence: as anticipated in the complaint, if the accused product is injection-molded, the case will involve a fact-intensive inquiry into whether that manufacturing process and resulting structure are equivalent to the "rotationally molded" body required by claim 14.
- A central question of claim construction will be the definitional scope of "individual fingered flexible protuberances." The outcome may depend on whether this term is construed narrowly to encompass only the cloth-like structures described in the patent's preferred embodiments, or more broadly to cover other types of flexible wing designs.