DCT
2:21-cv-00271
Doggie Dental Inc v. Cdoffice
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Doggie Dental Inc. (California) and Peter Dertsakyan (California)
- Defendant: Cdoffice, Acge LLC, AikoPets, et al. (Numerous individuals and business entities, many alleged to be operating in foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00271, W.D. Pa., 02/25/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in the district by targeting and selling products to consumers in Pennsylvania via online marketplace websites, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling "knock-off" dog chew toys that infringe a patent covering Plaintiff's BRISTLY® dog toothbrush.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to pet dental hygiene products, specifically a chew toy designed to allow dogs to clean their own teeth through a combination of scrubbing elements and a stabilizing base.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Plaintiff's BRISTLY® product was the subject of highly successful crowdfunding campaigns on Kickstarter and Indiegogo in 2018, establishing a significant market presence prior to the patent's issuance. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provides constructive notice by marking its product packaging with the patent number. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-03-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '838 Patent (Provisional App.) |
| 2017-06-01 | Plaintiff's BRISTLY® product launched for beta testing |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff's crowdfunding campaign launched |
| 2018-10-01 | Plaintiff's new version of BRISTLY® product went on sale |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,477,838 Issued |
| 2021-02-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,477,838 - "Pet chew toy for dental self-cleaning by domestic pets", issued November 19, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the difficulty of manually brushing a pet's teeth and notes that existing chew toys have several failings. Key problems cited are an inability for the pet to stabilize the toy for effective cleaning and a lack of features for applying pet toothpaste ('838 Patent, col. 2:5-12). The patent also notes that the different tooth shapes and spacing within a pet's mouth necessitate differentiated cleaning surfaces ('838 Patent, col. 2:13-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a chew toy featuring a central, upright member with bristle-lined grooves and a "bottom stabilizing portion" that is substantially flat and perpendicular to the central member ('838 Patent, col. 2:36-44). This T-shaped design allows a pet to hold the toy steady with its paws, enabling a more effective, self-administered cleaning. The solution also includes an internal reservoir to hold and dispense toothpaste through small holes into the cleaning grooves ('838 Patent, col. 2:45-51). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates the overall structure, including the stabilizing base and the central member with cleaning elements ('838 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design's key innovation is the stabilizing base, which addresses a consistent failing of prior art by allowing the pet to grip the toy and apply more forceful and satisfying chewing action, thereby increasing the friction applied to the teeth and gums ('838 Patent, col. 4:35-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A central chewing member with at least two "U-shaped grooves" on opposing sides, with "protruding scrubbing elements" on their internal surfaces.
- A "plurality of nub shaped elements" on an outside surface of the central member.
- A "bottom stabilizing portion" comprising at least one "substantially flat projection" that is perpendicular to the central member and configured to stabilize the toy in an upright position.
- An internal "longitudinal cavity" connected to a "central aperture" for filling and at least one "dispensing hole" for releasing a substance into the grooves.
- The entire chew toy is a "unitary structure made of non-toxic material."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies six categories of accused products, designated "Type 1-6 Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3, 48). These are described as "knock-off versions" of the Plaintiff's BRISTLY® dog toothbrush, sold by hundreds of online retailers (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products "closely mimic the appearance" of the Plaintiff's product, featuring a vertical member with bristles and a flat, stabilizing base (Compl. ¶2). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the plaintiff's product and a "Type 1 Infringing Product," which depicts a device with a vertical, bristle-covered member and a stabilizing T-shaped base (Compl. ¶3, p. 6). The complaint further alleges that the accused products are of inferior quality, made from "silicone or other materials" instead of natural rubber, and create public safety risks (Compl. ¶5). These products are allegedly marketed and sold through online platforms like Amazon.com to consumers in the U.S., including within the judicial district (Compl. ¶13.a, 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a textual claim chart but alleges that the Accused Type 1-6 Products infringe at least Claim 1 of the '838 patent, referencing exhibits not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶48). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative and visual evidence.
'838 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a central chewing member, comprising... at least two U-shaped grooves... on opposing sides... [with] a plurality of protruding scrubbing elements | The accused products are alleged to have a central vertical body with two opposing bristle-lined channels running along its length, as depicted in the complaint's visual evidence. | ¶3, p. 6 | col. 4:55-61 |
| a plurality of nub shaped elements positioned on an outside surface of said central chewing member | The accused products are depicted with raised bumps or nubs on the outer surfaces of the central body, between the bristle-lined grooves. | ¶3, p. 6 | col. 5:20-23 |
| at least one bottom stabilizing portion, comprising... at least one substantially flat projection that... is perpendicular to said central chewing member | The accused products are alleged to feature a flat, T-shaped base at the bottom of the central member, designed for a pet to hold with its paws. | ¶3, p. 6 | col. 4:26-34 |
| at least one central aperture... and an at least one longitudinal cavity... [and] at least one dispensing hole communicating between said... cavity and said... grooves | The complaint alleges infringement of all elements of Claim 1. However, it does not provide specific factual allegations or visual evidence (such as a cutaway) for these internal toothpaste-dispensing features. | ¶48 | col. 4:45-54 |
| wherein said chew toy is a unitary structure made of non-toxic material | The accused products are alleged to be single-piece chew toys made of materials such as silicone, which would fall under the broad category of "non-toxic material." | ¶5, 49 | col. 5:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A primary evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be proving that the accused products contain the internal features required by Claim 1: the "central aperture", "longitudinal cavity", and "dispensing hole". The complaint's infringement theory for these elements appears to be based on the overall external similarity of the products rather than on specific evidence of these internal structures.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of the term "U-shaped grooves." Defendants could argue that the channels on their products do not meet the specific contours required by this term as it is used and defined in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bottom stabilizing portion"
- Context and Importance: This feature is central to the patent's claimed improvement over prior art, as it enables a pet to hold the toy steady. Infringement hinges on the accused products possessing an equivalent structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core functional element that distinguishes the invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this element as "one or more projections, which may be circular or otherwise shaped, which are substantially flat and oriented perpendicular to the length of the central member" ('838 Patent, col. 2:39-42). This language suggests the shape is not limited to a specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a distinct, two-flanged, T-shaped base ('838 Patent, Figs. 1-3, 6). A defendant might argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to reflect this consistently disclosed embodiment.
The Term: "longitudinal cavity"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for the patent's toothpaste-dispensing function. As the complaint lacks direct evidence of this feature in the accused products, its definition will be pivotal if discovery reveals any kind of internal void in the accused products.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the cavity simply as running for "at least a portion of the length of said central chewing member" and connecting an aperture to a dispensing hole ('838 Patent, cl. 1(a)(iii)-(iv)). This could be argued to cover any internal channel, regardless of its primary purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly refers to this feature as a "reservoir for toothpaste" ('838 Patent, col. 4:45-49). A defendant could argue that a simple structural void not designed or intended as a "reservoir" would not meet this limitation, which implies a purpose of containment. The patent's Figure 5 depicts a clearly defined, cylindrical reservoir ('838 Patent, Fig. 5).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory and induced infringement, stating Defendants make, use, sell, and import products "that are nearly identical to Plaintiffs' Product" (Compl. ¶49). The allegation appears to be based on the sale of these products to end-users (pet owners), who will directly infringe by "using" the toy as intended (Compl. ¶49).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement, asserting that Defendants had "notice of or knew of the '838 patent" (Compl. ¶51). The basis for this knowledge includes Plaintiff's alleged practice of marking its product packaging with the patent number, which serves as constructive notice to the public (Compl. ¶30). The allegation is further supported by the claim that the accused products are "knock-off" copies, suggesting intentional copying (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products, which are alleged to be "knock-offs," contain the specific internal structures required by Claim 1—namely, the "longitudinal cavity", "central aperture", and "dispensing hole" for toothpaste? The complaint's infringement case appears to infer the presence of these hidden features from the products' external similarities.
A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: what is the proper construction of the term "bottom stabilizing portion"? The case may turn on whether this term is given a broad, functional definition based on the specification's text or a narrower one limited to the specific T-shaped embodiment consistently shown in the patent's figures.