DCT
2:25-cv-10207
Shenzhen Gu Zi zhi neng Ke Ji Fa Zhan Co Ltd v. Automated Pet Care Products LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen gu zi zhi neng ke ji fa zhan Co., Ltd, et al. (China)
- Defendant: Automated Pet Care Products, LLC (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10207, E.D. Mich., 01/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is domiciled in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, sellers of automated litter boxes, seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to self-cleaning litter box technology and that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated, self-cleaning litter boxes that employ a sifting mechanism to separate animal waste from clean litter.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by infringement notifications sent by the Defendant to Amazon.com in December 2024, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings from the platform. Plaintiffs contend these notices create an actual and justiciable controversy sufficient for a declaratory judgment action. The complaint also includes a count for invalidity of the asserted patent based on prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-10-20 | ’889 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-01-19 | ’889 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-12-03 | Amazon notifications received by Modi Tech, fwing tech, and Yang guang Ltd |
| 2024-12-17 | Amazon notification received by PetPivot INC |
| 2025-01-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,647,889, “APPARATUS FOR A LITTER BOX,” issued January 19, 2010 (the “’889 Patent”).
U.S. Patent No. 7,647,889 - “APPARATUS FOR A LITTER BOX”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in prior art automated litter boxes. It notes that "raking" or "combing" methods are prone to clogging and smearing waste, while existing "sifting" methods were often enclosed in globe-like structures that many cats refuse to use, or were otherwise difficult to automate effectively. (’889 Patent, col. 1:12-2:5, col. 3:1-13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-cleaning litter box that uses a two-part assembly to combine an effective sifting method with an unenclosed design. A rotatable first unit assembly, containing the litter, rests on a second, stationary base unit. (’889 Patent, col. 4:36-41). During a cleaning cycle, the first unit rotates, causing clean litter to pass through a screen into a temporary holding compartment, while solid waste is separated and directed into a waste receptacle located within the base. The unit then reverses rotation to return the clean litter to the main compartment. (’889 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-35).
- Technical Importance: The design sought to provide the superior, clog-resistant filtering of a sifting mechanism within an open-top format, making it more attractive for use by a wider population of household pets compared to enclosed automated systems. (’889 Patent, col. 4:52-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of the sole independent claim, Claim 1. (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1’s essential elements include:
- A first unit assembly comprising an unenclosed litter compartment, a temporary litter storage compartment, and a screen between them.
- A second unit assembly (a base) comprising:
- means for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly;
- means for receiving a waste receptacle below the first unit assembly;
- means for allowing waste to pass from the first unit assembly to the receptacle.
- A waste receptacle.
- Means for altering the orientation of the first unit assembly relative to the base and gravity to effect the sifting and waste discharge process.
- The complaint also alleges that dependent claims 2-6 are not infringed as a consequence of the non-infringement of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are various "Litter Box" products sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under storefronts such as PetPivot INC, Modi Tech, and fwing tech. (Compl. ¶¶13-22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused Litter Box as an automated, self-cleaning device. Functionally, it features a litter chamber that rotates on a base unit. (Compl. ¶30). This rotation is achieved via a "gear disc installed on the outer side of the litter chamber." (Compl. ¶32). The device utilizes a waste container that is "merely attached to the exterior bottom of the base unit." (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is the Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel into the United States," making the delisting of their products due to Defendant's infringement reports a source of "immediate and irreparable harm." (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges non-infringement by arguing that the accused Litter Box is "fundamentally different" from the invention claimed in the ’889 Patent. The core of the dispute centers on several means-plus-function limitations in Claim 1.
’889 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means within the base for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly above the base | The accused Litter Box's litter chamber is supported by "two joints located at the ends of the litter chamber," which Plaintiffs allege is distinct from the patent’s disclosed structure of four rollers. A diagram in the complaint highlights these joints. (Compl. ¶30, p. 7). | ¶30 | col. 7:14-17 |
| means within the base, located below the means for supporting the first unit assembly, for receiving a waste receptacle | The accused Litter Box has a waste container "merely attached to the exterior bottom of the base unit" and lacks an "internal storage cavity" within the base for the receptacle. A provided image contrasts the external container with the base unit. (Compl. ¶31, p. 7). | ¶31 | col. 5:2-3 |
| means for altering the orientation of the first unit assembly relative to the second unit assembly and the vector force of gravity | The accused Litter Box achieves rotation "through a gear disc installed on the outer side of the litter chamber." The complaint argues this is substantially different from the patent's disclosed track-and-sprocket mechanism and provides a diagram of the gear disc. (Compl. ¶32, p. 8). | ¶32 | col. 5:5-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute involves means-plus-function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The analysis will require the court to first identify the "corresponding structure" in the ’889 Patent's specification for each "means for..." element and then determine if the accused product's structure is the same or a structural equivalent.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused product's "two joints" are structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed "rollers 210" for the function of supporting the rotating assembly. A similar question arises as to whether the accused "gear disc" drive is equivalent to the patent's disclosed "sprocket and track" drive mechanism for the function of altering the assembly's orientation. The location of the waste receptacle—external versus internal to the base—also presents a direct structural comparison.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The case will heavily depend on the construction of the means-plus-function limitations in Claim 1.
The Term: "means... for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly above the base"
- Context and Importance: This term defines how the rotating litter chamber is supported. Plaintiffs allege their "two joints" are structurally distinct from the patent's disclosed mechanism, making this construction foundational to their non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant (patentee) may argue that the function is simply "supporting" during rotation and that various mechanical solutions, including joints, are equivalents known at the time.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding structure explicitly disclosed in the specification for performing this function is "rollers 210" on which the First Unit Assembly "rides." (’889 Patent, col. 7:14-15; Fig. 1B). A court will likely define the structure as "rollers 210 and their equivalents."
The Term: "means for altering the orientation of the first unit assembly..."
- Context and Importance: This term defines the drive mechanism. The complaint alleges the accused "gear disc" is fundamentally different from the structure disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant may argue that any motor-driven system that rotates the chamber is an equivalent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: a "drive unit 220" comprising a "motor 224" and a "sprocket 222" that engages a "track 110" on the outer surface of the First Unit Assembly. (’889 Patent, col. 7:15-20; Fig. 1A). The infringement analysis will compare the accused gear system to this specific track-and-sprocket structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly" but does not provide specific facts for analysis of inducement or contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringers, willfulness is not directly at issue. However, Plaintiffs request that the case be found "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could lead to an award of attorney fees, based on the allegation that Defendant's infringement reports to Amazon were "baseless." (Compl. ¶35; Prayer for Relief ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely hinge on two central issues for the court:
A question of structural equivalence: For the three distinct means-plus-function limitations in Claim 1, are the structures in the Plaintiffs’ accused litter box (end-point joints, an external waste container, and a side-mounted gear disc) legally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the ’889 Patent’s specification (an under-body roller system, an internal waste receptacle, and a track-and-sprocket drive)?
A question of patent validity: Does the prior art Shepherd patent (U.S. 6,701,868), as alleged in the complaint, disclose the elements of Claim 1 of the ’889 Patent such that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time?