Peter Dertsakyan v. Buyadise

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Doggie Dental Inc. (California) and Peter Dertsakyan (California)
  • Defendant: Numerous individuals, partnerships, and unincorporated associations identified by online seller names (various, primarily foreign jurisdictions alleged)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC
• Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00565, W.D. Pa., 04/29/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants, on information and belief, conduct business in the district, may be found in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, and non-resident Defendants may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ sale of various "knock-off" pet toothbrush chew toys infringes a patent related to a pet chew toy designed for dental self-cleaning.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to pet dental hygiene products, specifically chew toys designed to allow pets to clean their own teeth through the act of chewing, a significant market segment in the pet care industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the development history of the Plaintiffs' "BRISTLY" product, including a beta launch in June 2017, successful crowdfunding campaigns in 2018, and a commercial launch in October 2018. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs provide constructive notice by marking their product packaging with the patent number.

Case Timeline

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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10477838, “Pet chew toy for dental self-cleaning by domestic pets,” issued November 19, 2019 (the “`’838` Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of manually cleaning pets' teeth and identifies shortcomings in existing chew toys. These include an inability for the pet to stabilize the toy for effective chewing, a lack of differentiated cleaning surfaces for different types of teeth (e.g., canines vs. molars), and no mechanism for using supplementary dental hygiene products like toothpaste (’838 Patent, col. 1:40-44, col. 2:6-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a pet chew toy designed to overcome these issues. It features a central chewing member with grooves and various "scrubbing elements" (e.g., bristles) to clean a pet's teeth and gums (’838 Patent, col. 2:30-35). A key feature is a set of "substantially flat perpendicular projections" at the base, which allow a pet to hold the toy upright and stable with its paws, enabling a more forceful and effective chewing action (’838 Patent, col. 2:36-44, col. 4:26-44). The design may also include an internal reservoir to dispense toothpaste through small holes as the pet chews (’838 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
• Technical Importance: The design purports to transform a passive chew toy into an active dental cleaning system by incorporating a stabilization feature that leverages a pet's natural tendency to hold objects with its paws while chewing (’838 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A central chewing member comprising at least two U-shaped grooves with protruding scrubbing elements.
  • The grooves are arranged parallel to each other on opposing sides of the central member.
  • A plurality of nub-shaped elements on the outside surface of the central member.
  • A central aperture and an internal longitudinal cavity for holding a substance like toothpaste.
  • At least one dispensing hole connecting the cavity to the grooves.
  • A bottom stabilizing portion, comprising at least one substantially flat projection perpendicular to the central member, configured to stabilize the toy in an upright position.
  • The chew toy is a unitary structure made of non-toxic material.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies six variations of accused products, designated as "Type 1" through "Type 6" Infringing Products (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "knock-off versions" of Plaintiffs' BRISTLY® product that "closely mimic the appearance" of the patented device (Compl. ¶2). Side-by-side photographic comparisons are provided to illustrate the alleged similarity in shape, including a vertical chewing portion and a horizontal base (Compl. pp. 4-6). The complaint alleges these products are made from inferior materials such as silicone, in contrast to the natural rubber used for Plaintiffs' product, creating safety risks (Compl. ¶5). The complaint includes a photograph of an allegedly infringing product that has been chewed apart, submitted by a consumer who believed it was a genuine BRISTLY® product (Compl. ¶5, p. 7). These products are allegedly sold through various online marketplaces by the numerous named Defendants (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Type 1-6 Products infringe at least Claim 1 but references claim chart exhibits that are not included in the filing (Compl. ¶48). The infringement theory is based on the assertion that the accused products are "nearly identical" knock-offs (Compl. ¶2, ¶49). The visual evidence provided in the complaint supports this theory by showing products with a vertical structure featuring grooves and bristles, and a flat base portion.

’838 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the bases of the accused products perform the function of the claimed "bottom stabilizing portion," which is described as being "configured to stabilize said chew toy in an upright position" when gripped by a pet's paws (’838 Patent, col. 2:40-44). The dispute may focus on whether the mere presence of a flat base meets this functional limitation.
• Technical Questions: While visually similar, the complaint alleges the accused products are made of different materials (silicone vs. natural rubber) (Compl. ¶5). This raises the question of whether the accused products meet the "non-toxic material" limitation and whether the material difference impacts the functionality of the "scrubbing elements" or other features in a way that is relevant to infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "bottom stabilizing portion"
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art, which the patent characterizes as lacking features to allow a pet to stabilize the toy with its paws (’838 Patent, col. 2:1-5). The infringement analysis for every accused product will likely depend on whether its base structure falls within the court's construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is defined both structurally ("substantially flat projection") and functionally ("stabilizes said chew toy").
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires "at least one substantially flat projection that stabilizes said chew toy when in use" (’838 Patent, col. 5:33-35). This language does not specify a size, shape (beyond "substantially flat"), or degree of stability, which could support a construction covering any flat base that provides some measure of stability.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this feature as allowing a pet to "fully pin down and stabilize the central member...such that it is fully upright and immobile," enabling a "much strong grip" (’838 Patent, col. 4:36-40). Furthermore, the figures consistently depict a wide, dual-flanged base (’838 Patent, Figs. 1-3, 6). This could support a narrower construction requiring a base sufficient to render the toy "immobile" when held by a pet's paws, potentially limiting the claim's scope to bases of a certain size or geometry.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation of indirect infringement through acts of inducement or contributory infringement but does not plead specific facts, such as referencing user instructions or advertising, to support the knowledge and intent elements of such claims (Compl. ¶49).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "notice of or knew of the ‘838 patent" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint further alleges that Plaintiffs provide constructive notice of the patent by "placing the patent number of the ‘838 patent on the packaging of Plaintiffs' Product," which may serve as a basis for willfulness from the time of notice (Compl. ¶30).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "bottom stabilizing portion," which is described in the specification as allowing a pet to render the toy "fully upright and immobile," be construed to cover the bases of the accused products, whose exact size, weight, and material composition are unknown but are alleged to be inferior?
• A second key question will be evidentiary: given the large number of foreign, online sellers named as defendants, the case will likely face significant procedural challenges related to service, jurisdiction, and discovery. The primary question may become less about the technical merits of infringement and more about the practical ability of the Plaintiffs to effectively pursue claims against a diffuse and anonymized group of alleged infringers.
• Finally, a central question for damages and willfulness will be one of notice: can Plaintiffs establish that each of the numerous, disparate online sellers had actual or constructive knowledge of the ’838 Patent, particularly when the primary basis alleged is patent marking on a product they are accused of copying rather than selling?