1:25-cv-00200
HHF Collective LLC v. Devora Enterprises LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HHF Collective, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Devora Enterprise L.L.C. d/b/a De’Vora (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00200, N.D.N.Y., 02/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, directed accusations of infringement into the district, and caused harm to the Plaintiff within the district by having its product listing suspended on Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Dog Nail Scratch Board" product does not infringe Defendant’s patent related to a multi-functional pet toy.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of pet care products, specifically toys that integrate grooming functions, such as nail filing, with features designed for animal enrichment and interactive play.
- Key Procedural History: This action for declaratory judgment arises from a pre-suit dispute. Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 21, 2024, Defendant filed a patent infringement complaint with Amazon.com, resulting in the suspension of Plaintiff’s product listing. Following a series of communications in which Plaintiff asserted non-infringement and demanded withdrawal of the Amazon complaint, Defendant allegedly refused, creating the basis for the current justiciable controversy.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-02 | ’789 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-03-19 | ’789 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-10-21 | Defendant files complaint with Amazon.com |
| 2024-11-22 | Plaintiff sends first non-infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2024-12-06 | Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendant |
| 2024-12-28 | Plaintiff sends final email to Defendant |
| 2024-12-29 | Defendant responds, refusing to withdraw Amazon complaint |
| 2025-02-12 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,930,789 - "Pet Toy", issued March 19, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for pet toys that address boredom and destructive behavior while also providing health benefits, such as dental hygiene and claw care (ʼ789 Patent, col. 1:12-29). The invention seeks to combine these functions into a single device.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-purpose pet toy with a body that includes one or more pad surfaces for adhering an abrasive material to file a pet's claws (ʼ789 Patent, col. 2:49-54). It also features an internal cavity to hold treats, scent receptacles to encourage play, and handles to facilitate interactive play like tug-of-war (ʼ789 Patent, col. 2:31-34, col. 3:1-4, col. 3:24-30).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention combines passive grooming with active enrichment, aiming to engage a pet's natural instincts and senses to provide "physical and mental entertainment" while simultaneously performing a care function (ʼ789 Patent, col. 2:17-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the patent generally, which implicates the patent's independent claims (Compl. ¶10). The independent claims are Claim 1 and Claim 18.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A pet toy comprising a body with an upper face, lower face, and sides.
- At least one face has a pad surface for adhering an abrasive material.
- The face also has "one or more substantially circular scent cavities" for a scent material.
- The body has an internal central cavity and at least one aperture for access.
- The toy includes at least one handle made of an "elastic material" which has a "plurality of grooves" for cleaning pet teeth.
- Independent Claim 18:
- A pet toy comprising a body with an upper face, lower face, and sides.
- At least one face includes a pad surface for an abrasive material.
- The face also includes a "guard projection extending in a perpendicular direction" to prevent the abrasive material from contacting a flat surface.
- The body has an internal central cavity and at least one aperture for access.
- The toy includes at least one handle for grasping.
- The complaint does not mention any dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s "Dog Nail Scratch Board" (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The product is described as a "pet grooming tool to help pets naturally file their nails" (Compl. ¶9). Its central feature is an "abrasive surface on which a pet can scratch its nails" (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint asserts that the product is a grooming tool and explicitly denies that it incorporates several features claimed in the ’789 Patent, including scent cavities, elastic handles with grooves for teeth cleaning, or guard projections (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
- The product was sold on Amazon.com, where it was allegedly "generating steady sales and a growing customer base" before its listing was suspended as a result of Defendant's infringement complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶22).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiff's allegations regarding why its product does not meet the limitations of the independent claims of the ’789 Patent.
’789 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (per Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| one or more substantially circular scent cavities configured to receive a scent material | The product allegedly lacks "circular scent cavities configured to receive a scent material." | ¶14a | col. 4:39-42 |
| at least one handle, made of an elastic material... wherein the handle includes a plurality of grooves sized and positioned to be contacted by pet teeth and configured to clean the pet teeth | The product allegedly does not include "elastic handles" or "handles with grooves designed for pet teeth cleaning." | ¶9, ¶14b | col. 4:46-51 |
’789 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (per Claim 18)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a guard projection extending in a perpendicular direction with respect to the pad surface and configured to prevent the abrasive material from contacting a flat surface upon which the pet toy is placed | The product allegedly does not include a "guard projection extending perpendicularly from the pad surface." | ¶9, ¶14c | col. 6:9-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The core of the dispute is factual and structural. The court will need to compare the physical "Dog Nail Scratch Board" to the claim language. The primary question is whether the product, described as a simple scratch board, contains any structures that could be characterized as "scent cavities", "handles with grooves", or a "guard projection" as those terms are defined in the patent.
- Functional Questions: A related issue is functional. For example, even if the product's handle has surface texturing, does that texture constitute "grooves" that are "configured to clean the pet teeth" as required by Claim 1? The complaint’s position is that its product is solely a grooming tool and lacks these additional functionalities (Compl. ¶9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "scent cavities" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff explicitly alleges its product lacks this feature (Compl. ¶14a). The presence or absence of a structure meeting this definition may be dispositive for infringement of Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition appears to require both a specific structure ("substantially circular cavities") and function ("configured to receive a scent material") (ʼ789 Patent, col. 4:39-42).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "cavities" could be argued to encompass any form of indentation or recess on the toy's surface capable of holding a substance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes these as "generally circular cavities or scent receptacles... for receiving scent materials" and shows them as distinct circular features in the corners of the toy body (ʼ789 Patent, col. 3:1-4; Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, purpose-built circular receptacle.
The Term: "guard projection" (Claim 18)
Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges its product does not have this feature (Compl. ¶14c), making its construction central to the analysis of Claim 18. The dispute will be whether any part of the product's body or frame that incidentally raises the abrasive surface off a floor constitutes the claimed "guard projection".
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the projection be "configured to prevent the abrasive material from contacting a flat surface," which is a functional limitation. A party could argue that any structural element that achieves this function meets the claim, regardless of its specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the projections "extend slightly above the respective upper pad surface" and shows them as specific raised ridges surrounding the pad area (ʼ789 Patent, col. 2:61-63; Fig. 1, element 50). This suggests the projection is a distinct element added for the specific purpose of elevating the abrasive pad.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint includes a state law claim for Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Compl. ¶¶21-26). This claim is based on the allegation that Defendant wrongfully filed its complaint with Amazon "without a good faith basis and with knowledge that the Accused Product did not infringe" (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A question of claim construction: Can the structural terms of the ’789 Patent, such as "scent cavities" and "guard projection", be interpreted broadly enough to read on the features of a product marketed simply as a "Dog Nail Scratch Board"? Or does the patent’s specification limit these terms to the specific, multi-functional embodiments described and depicted therein?
A question of factual comparison: Assuming the claim terms are construed, does the physical "Dog Nail Scratch Board" actually possess the structures and functionalities required by the claims? The case will turn on a direct, element-by-element comparison of the product to the asserted patent claims, with Plaintiff arguing for a complete absence of key claimed features.