DCT

2:20-cv-02149

Green Pet Shop Enterprises LLC v. Penn Plax Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-02149, E.D.N.Y., 05/12/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is incorporated in the State of New York.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet cooling mat products infringe patents related to a pressure-activated, self-recharging cooling platform.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the pet care product sector, specifically focusing on non-electric, portable cooling pads that utilize a chemical composition to provide temperature regulation for animals upon the application of pressure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit were previously litigated against Maze Innovations, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. In that case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reportedly declined to institute an inter partes review challenging the patents' validity. The complaint further states that the district court in that prior case adopted the Plaintiff's proposed claim construction and rejected the one offered by Maze, after which Maze settled and admitted to validity and infringement. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patents and the prior litigation history before filing the current suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-04-14 Priority Date for '218 and '474 Patents
2012-02-09 '218 Patent application assigned to Plaintiff
2012-07-17 Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of '218 Patent publication
2014-05-13 '218 Patent Issue Date
2014-12-31 Plaintiff began marking its product with patent numbers (no later than 2014)
2016-01-05 '474 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-30 Plaintiff sent notice of infringement to Defendant
2020-03-13 Plaintiff's counsel sent notice of infringement to Defendant
2020-05-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,720,218 - "Pressure Activated Recharging Cooling Platform" (issued May 13, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional cooling pet beds as suffering from two primary drawbacks: those that are electrically powered are not portable and are subject to power failure, while those using non-electric means like ice packs require frequent replacement and are not reusable without intervention (’218 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layer cooling platform that contains a "pressure activated recharging cooling composition." This chemical composition is designed to trigger an endothermic (cooling) reaction when an object, such as a pet, applies pressure by lying on the platform. When the pressure is removed, the composition "recharges," reversing the reaction so it can be used again without electricity or replacement parts (’218 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:18-24). The platform includes channels that prevent the cooling composition from being completely displaced under pressure, ensuring continued performance (’218 Patent, col. 5:21-28).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a portable, non-electric, and automatically reusable cooling surface, offering a low-cost and "eco-friendly" alternative to existing solutions (’218 Patent, col. 5:14-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 15, as an example, requires:
    • A temperature regulation layer with an "angled segment" and "channels."
    • A "pressure activated recharging cooling composition" within that layer that is "endothermically activated and endothermically deactivated upon the application and release of pressure, respectively."

U.S. Patent No. 9,226,474 - "Pressure Activated Recharging Cooling Platform" (issued January 5, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’218 Patent, the ’474 Patent addresses the same limitations of prior art electric and ice-pack-based cooling pads (’474 Patent, col. 1:21-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’474 Patent describes a similar pressure-activated cooling platform but claims the structure differently. The claims focus on an integrated "support layer" within the temperature regulation layer itself. This internal support layer, made of an elastic material like foam, is capable of absorbing the pressure-activated cooling composition, combining the support and cooling functions into a more integrated system (’474 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration also provides a portable, self-recharging cooling solution, with claims directed toward a specific internal structure where a support material absorbs the active cooling agent (’474 Patent, col. 5:18-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, as well as dependent claims 4 and 5 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A temperature regulation layer with a "plurality of angled segments" and "channels."
    • A "pressure activated recharging cooling composition" that activates and deactivates with pressure.
    • A "support layer within the temperature regulation layer" made of an "elastic material" where the cooling composition "is absorbed within the support layer."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Penn-Plax Glacier Gear Cooling Mat" is identified as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "pet bed" (Compl. ¶13). It does not provide any specific technical details regarding the product's construction, materials, or mechanism of operation beyond the conclusory allegation that it is "covered by" the asserted claims (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the product is made, imported, and sold in the United States by the Defendant (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide element-by-element infringement allegations or include claim chart exhibits. The infringement theory is limited to the general assertion that the Accused Product is "covered by" the asserted claims of the ’218 and ’474 patents (Compl. ¶14, ¶24, ¶29). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. A detailed, element-level analysis is therefore not possible based on the complaint alone.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Chemical Functionality: A central technical question will be whether the Accused Product contains a cooling agent that functions as a "pressure activated recharging cooling composition," specifically one that is "endothermically activated and endothermically deactivated upon the application and release of pressure" as required by both patents (’218 Patent, Claim 15; ’474 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Structural Correspondence: A key dispute for the ’474 Patent will be factual. Does the Accused Product contain a "support layer" that is not merely a container for a gel but is an "elastic material" in which the "cooling composition is absorbed," as recited in Claim 1? (’474 Patent, Claim 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "pressure activated recharging cooling composition" (’218 Patent, Claim 15; ’474 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of both asserted patents. Its construction will likely determine whether the cooling substance in the Defendant's product infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint highlights a prior lawsuit where claim construction was a decisive issue (Compl. ¶20).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the composition to a specific chemical formula. For example, Claim 18 of the ’218 Patent recites the composition more broadly as being "comprised of water and polyacrylamide" (’218 Patent, col. 8:12-18).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific, four-part chemical formulation as an embodiment: "thirty percent carboxmethyl cellulose; twenty percent water; thirty-five percent polyacrylamide; and at least fifteen percent alginic acid" (’218 Patent, col. 3:25-29). A party could argue that the claims should be construed to be limited to this or chemically similar compositions.

  • The Term: "a support layer... wherein the pressure activating cooling composition is absorbed within the support layer" (’474 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is unique to the independent claims of the ’474 Patent and distinguishes them from the ’218 Patent. The interpretation of "absorbed within" will be critical to determining infringement of the ’474 Patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the support layer can be made from materials like "polyurethane foam, elastomer foam, [or] memory foam" (’474 Patent, col. 3:1-3). This could support a construction where "absorbed within" means being held within the physical matrix or pores of the foam.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "absorbed within" implies more than mere containment and requires a specific physical or chemical uptake of the liquid composition into the solid "elastic material" of the support layer itself, suggesting a distinction from a simple mixture or filling.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶24, ¶29). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendant allegedly instructed or encouraged its customers to perform the infringing acts.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge. The asserted grounds for knowledge include the publication of the patents, at least two separate notice letters sent to Defendant (on April 30, 2018 and March 13, 2020), and notice of the outcome of the prior successful litigation against Maze Innovations (Compl. ¶15, ¶22, ¶25, ¶30). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement continued after receiving this information (Compl. ¶16).

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

  • A central issue will be the impact of prior litigation: The complaint alleges a favorable claim construction ruling and a subsequent admission of validity and infringement in a prior case involving the same patents. A key question for the court will be what persuasive or preclusive effect, if any, to give that prior ruling, which could significantly influence the scope of claim construction disputes in the present case.
  • The case will also depend on a question of technical and factual correspondence: Given the sparse detail in the complaint, the outcome will turn on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the accused "Glacier Gear Cooling Mat" has both the specific chemical functionality (a pressure-activated, recharging composition) and the physical structure (such as a support layer that "absorbs" the composition) required by the asserted claims.