DCT
2:20-cv-01890
Couch Potato Enterprises LLC v. Robert
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Couch Potato Enterprises LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Robert T. Yackley, as an Individual and Intellileash Products, Inc. (Illinois/Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WEISS & ARONS LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01890, D.N.J., 02/21/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there, has directed enforcement activities (including filing a complaint with Amazon.com against the New Jersey-based Plaintiff) at the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its pet stake product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,364,543, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to earth-anchoring stakes, commonly used for tethering pets or supporting trees, which are designed to resist being pulled out of the ground.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by a cease and desist letter sent from Defendant to Plaintiff, followed by Defendant filing a "Rights Owner Complaint" with Amazon.com alleging infringement. The complaint also alleges that the patent-in-suit is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution, specifically the applicant's failure to disclose to the USPTO that identical or substantially similar claims had been finally rejected in a parent application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-04 | Earliest Priority Date for '543 Patent (Provisional App. 62/033,024) |
| 2015-08-04 | Filing Date of parent '088 Application |
| 2018-04-04 | Filing Date of '590 Application (which issued as '543 Patent) |
| 2019-07-30 | '543 Patent Issued |
| 2020-02-06 | Plaintiff received cease and desist letter from Defendant |
| 2020-02-13 | Defendant filed Rights Owner Complaint with Amazon.com |
| 2020-02-21 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,364,543 - "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PORTABLE STAKE MOUNTING"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a common problem where conventional ground stakes, used for tethering pets or supporting trees, loosen and pull out of the ground, particularly when subjected to horizontal pulling forces ('543 Patent, col. 1:30-44). This loosening reduces the stake's security and can lead to complete failure.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part stake assembly comprising a stake and an inverted "cup." This cup is driven into the ground along with the stake and "captur[es] a large portion of the earth" ('543 Patent, Abstract). This captured soil significantly increases the assembly's resistance to horizontal movement and being pulled out, thereby providing a more secure anchor ('543 Patent, col. 2:11-16, 41-50). The cup and stake can be separate components that engage upon installation or formed as a unitary piece.
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the anchoring force of a simple stake by using the surrounding soil itself as a source of resistance, rather than relying solely on the friction along the stake's shaft ('543 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 11 as being at issue (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1: A stake assembly comprising:
- a concave portion arranged facing the earth, having a top wall and a depending sidewall below the top wall, the sidewall enclosing a perimeter and having an open bottom end;
- a stake portion engaged to the concave portion comprising a shaft intended to be driven into the earth;
- the stake portion has a stop, and the top wall has a hole sized to let the shaft pass but not the stop;
- the concave portion includes a socket and the stake portion includes a plug that fits into the socket.
- Independent Claim 11: A stake assembly comprising:
- a stake having a longitudinal axis and an upper and lower portion;
- a cup having a sidewall defining a closed perimeter, a top wall substantially closing the sidewall, and an open bottom end;
- the top wall includes an upstanding socket defining a vertical passage;
- the stake passes through the top wall, with the upper portion including a plug that fits within the socket.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Felix & Fido Mighty-Stake" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product as pet equipment sold by Plaintiff as an on-line retailer on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint provides minimal technical detail on the product's structure, focusing instead on alleging what claimed features the product lacks (Compl. ¶¶33-35). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes Plaintiff's allegations that its product is missing key claim elements.
'543 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a concave portion ... having "a depending sidewall below the top wall, the sidewall enclosing a perimeter and having an open bottom end." | The complaint alleges the accused product does not include this element. | ¶33 | col. 5:56-62 |
| "a stake portion engaged to the concave portion." | The complaint alleges the accused product does not include this element. | ¶34 | col. 5:62-63 |
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cup having "a sidewall defining a closed perimeter." | The complaint alleges the accused product does not have a circular sidewall or a sidewall that performs a similar function. | ¶35 | col. 8:4-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The core of the non-infringement dispute appears to be factual and structural. A primary question will be whether the Felix & Fido Mighty-Stake contains a structure that meets the claim definitions of a "concave portion" with a "depending sidewall" (Claim 1) or a "cup" with a "sidewall defining a closed perimeter" (Claim 11).
- Scope Questions: The complaint's specific denial of having a "circular sidewall, or a sidewall that performs a function similar to a circular sidewall" (Compl. ¶35) raises a question of claim scope. The court may need to determine if the term "sidewall defining a closed perimeter" is limited to the circular or cylindrical embodiments shown in the patent or if it can read on other shapes, as the specification suggests "any geometrical shape" may have a "similar function" ('543 Patent, col. 4:26-29).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "concave portion" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the primary structure that distinguishes the invention from a simple stake. Plaintiff’s non-infringement argument for Claim 1 hinges on its product allegedly lacking a "depending sidewall" that is part of this "concave portion" (Compl. ¶33). The construction of this term will determine what structural features are required to meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "concave portion", which could be argued to encompass a wide variety of shapes that are hollow or curved inward. The patent also refers to the structure more generally as an "inverted ... cup structure" ('543 Patent, col. 2:37-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes this portion as a "cup 120 formed by a cylindrical sidewall 122 and closed on the top by a plate 126" ('543 Patent, col. 4:40-42). An accused infringer may argue that the term should be limited to the distinct cup-like structures shown in figures like Fig. 3.
The Term: "sidewall defining a closed perimeter" (Claim 11)
Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 11 and is directly disputed by the Plaintiff, who alleges its product lacks a "circular sidewall" or one with a "similar function" (Compl. ¶35). The case may turn on whether the accused product's structure, whatever its shape, falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that while an embodiment shows a circular shape, "The cup's underside and topside could take any geometrical shape and have similar function" ('543 Patent, col. 4:26-29), suggesting the "closed perimeter" is not limited to a circle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiments described and depicted consistently show a "cylindrical sidewall" (e.g., items 122, 222, 422 in Figs. 3, 7, 10). A party could argue that the "function" of the perimeter is tied to the soil-capturing properties of the disclosed cylindrical shape.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶31), but it does not contain specific factual allegations related to theories of induced or contributory infringement.
- Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes a detailed allegation of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶44-56). The theory is that during the prosecution of the '590 application (which issued as the '543 Patent), the applicant failed to disclose to the USPTO examiner that "identical and substantially similar claims" had been finally rejected in the parent '088 application (Compl. ¶¶50-51). The complaint alleges this prior rejection was "but-for" material and that the failure to disclose it, while simultaneously arguing for the patentability of the same claims, supports an inference of a "specific intent to deceive" the USPTO (Compl. ¶¶46, 56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Question of Unenforceability: A threshold issue for the patent's survival is the allegation of inequitable conduct. The central question will be whether Plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant, with intent to deceive, withheld material information (the prior rejections in the parent application) from the USPTO.
- A Question of Structural Equivalence: On the merits of infringement, the case will likely turn on a comparison of the accused product's physical structure to the claim language. The key question is factual: does the "Felix & Fido Mighty-Stake" incorporate a structure that can be properly characterized as a "concave portion" with a "depending sidewall" (Claim 1) or a "cup" with a "sidewall defining a closed perimeter" (Claim 11)?
- A Question of Definitional Scope: Tied to the structural question is one of claim construction. The court will need to resolve whether terms like "concave portion" and "closed perimeter", which are described with specific cylindrical embodiments in the patent, should be interpreted narrowly to match those embodiments or more broadly to encompass any shape that performs a similar soil-capturing function.