Ourpet's Co v. Advance Pet Products

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OurPet’s Company (Colorado corporation with a principal place of business in Ohio)
  • Defendant: Advance Pet Products (Michigan business entity)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Choken Welling LLP
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-10463, E.D. Mich., 02/08/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is located in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, and infringement occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s stainless steel pet bowls with affixed rubber bottoms infringe two patents related to non-skid covered bowls.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the application of rubber or plastic covers to the exterior of metallic pet bowls to prevent sliding, reduce noise, and protect surfaces.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit claim priority back to a provisional application filed in 2000. Plaintiff alleges its own commercial products are marked as patented, providing a potential basis for its allegation of Defendant's knowledge.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,286,589 - Covered Bowls Such as Pet Food and Water Bowls (Issued Oct. 16, 2012)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings with prior art pet bowls, particularly that stainless steel bowls tend to slide on smooth surfaces like floors, creating noise and potential scratches, while existing non-skid solutions were not well-suited for durable, stainless steel designs (ʼ589 Patent, col. 1:43-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a stainless steel pet bowl with a cover made of a material like rubber or plastic that is secured to the bowl's exterior surface, for example by molding or adhesive attachment ('589 Patent, col. 2:17-22). This cover provides a non-skid surface, protects the floor, and can offer aesthetic and insulating benefits ('589 Patent, col. 2:24-43). A key feature described is a cover that extends from the bottom of the bowl up at least a portion of the bowl's sidewall ('589 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The invention sought to combine the hygienic and durability advantages of stainless steel with the functional benefits of a permanently attached, non-skid base, addressing consumer demand for an all-in-one, machine-washable product ('589 Patent, col. 1:61-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted. Analysis of the complaint's allegations suggests that independent claim 7 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 7 includes these essential elements:
  • An animal feeder with a bowl formed of stainless steel or other metal with an annular sidewall.
  • A "lower surface cover" that is "affixed" and "molded to" the lower surface of the bowl.
  • The lower surface cover "extends up from a bottom surface and up said at least a portion of said annular sidewall."

U.S. Patent No. 8,973,529 - Covered Bowls Such as Pet Food and Water Bowls (Issued Mar. 10, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’529 Patent addresses the tendency of hard, stainless steel pet bowls to slide on, scratch, and make noise on smooth floors. It also notes that prior art removable covers could be an impediment to cleaning ('529 Patent, col. 1:45-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a metallic pet bowl with a nonmetallic (e.g., rubber) cover permanently secured to the lower exterior surface, such as by bonding, vulcanizing, or molding ('529 Patent, col. 2:10-14). The complaint characterizes this patent as teaching a cover that "need not extend up the sidewall, i.e., rubber on the bottom of the bowl only" (Compl. ¶27). The cover is intended to be permanently affixed to create a durable, machine-washable unit ('529 Patent, col. 1:53-62).
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a commercially desirable stainless steel feeder with a permanently affixed non-skid bottom, improving convenience and durability over products with removable components ('529 Patent, col. 1:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted. Analysis of the complaint's allegations suggests that independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
  • An animal feeder or drinking container with a bowl formed of metal.
  • A cover "secured to at least a portion or the exterior lower outer surface" of the bowl.
  • The cover "remains affixed to said bowl during lifting, moving or repositioning."
  • The cover comprises an "annular second sidewall extending from said exterior lower outer surface."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Item # 2231" and other "stainless steel bowls with rubber affixed to the bottom" or "bowls with rubber bottoms" made, used, or sold by Defendant Advance Pet Products (Compl. ¶29, ¶30, ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are pet bowls that directly compete with the Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶22). The functional aspect at issue is the inclusion of a rubber bottom on a stainless steel bowl, which the Plaintiff alleges infringes its patents (Compl. ¶37, ¶45). The complaint includes by reference photographs of a purchased accused product and photographs from the Defendant's website (Compl. ¶29, ¶30). For example, the complaint references "true and accurate photographs of the allegedly infringing bowl together with a receipt" provided as Exhibit 3 (Compl. ¶29). It also references "true and accurate photographs of the allegedly infringing bowls from the Defendant's website" as Exhibit 4 (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts, but alleges infringement based on the structure of the accused bowls.

’589 Patent Infringement Allegations

’529 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue for the ’589 Patent may be the interpretation of "molded to." The complaint alleges the rubber is "affixed" (Compl. ¶37), which raises the question of whether this meets the more specific "molded to" limitation in Claim 7.
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute for the ’589 Patent will likely be whether the accused bowls' rubber bottoms "extend...up at least a portion of said annular sidewall" as claimed. For the ’529 Patent, a similar question arises as to whether the accused products possess the claimed "annular second sidewall extending from said exterior lower outer surface." The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these specific structural features, meaning resolution would depend on evidence from the products themselves.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "molded to" (’589 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of Claim 7 hinges on the method of attachment. The complaint uses the term "affixed" (Compl. ¶37), which may or may not fall within the scope of "molded to." Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the Defendant's manufacturing process is covered.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the cover can be affixed by a "variety of methods, including molding or manual manipulation or adhesive attachment" ('589 Patent, col. 3:17-20), which may support construing "molded to" as one example of a permanent affixation method rather than a strict process limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patentee chose the specific term "molded to" in Claim 7, distinct from the broader term "affixed" used elsewhere (e.g., Claim 7 preamble), suggesting a deliberate limitation to a direct molding process.

The Term: "extends up...at least a portion of said annular sidewall" (’589 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a primary distinction between the technologies taught in the two patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges the '529 patent covers bowls with rubber "on the bottom... only" (Compl. ¶27), making any upward extension on the accused product critical for infringement of '589 Claim 7.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "at least a portion" could be interpreted to mean any amount of extension, however minimal, beyond the plane of the bottom surface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 3, depict a distinct upward curve of the cover (element 40) onto the sidewall (element 60) ('589 Patent, Fig. 3). This could be used to argue that "extends up" requires a noticeable, structurally significant feature, not just an incidental rounded edge.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for both patents, based on the Defendant's alleged "offering for sale and selling their infringing products to dealers at wholesale prices" who then sell to end users (Compl. ¶40, ¶48).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the Defendant’s infringement has been "deliberate, willful, with full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s rights" (Compl. ¶41, ¶49). The alleged basis for knowledge is the Plaintiff's practice of "marking of its products as patented and/or patent pending" (Compl. ¶21).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and evidence: Can the term "molded to" in the ’589 patent be construed to cover the accused products, which are described only as having rubber "affixed" to them? Furthermore, does the physical evidence from the accused products show a rubber cover that "extends up" the sidewall, as required by the ’589 patent, or one that is confined to the bottom, as described for the ’529 patent?
• A second key question will be one of proof of knowledge for willfulness: Can the Plaintiff establish that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit, sufficient to support a willfulness claim, based on the Plaintiff's general marking of its own products as "patented"?
• Finally, the case may turn on a question of patent distinction: The complaint draws a sharp line between the '589 patent (cover extends up sidewall) and the '529 patent (cover on bottom only). A central dispute will be mapping the physical structure of the accused bowls to one, both, or neither of these patent claim scopes.