DCT
2:23-cv-00538
Aquapaw Brands LLC v. Pusifica
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aquapaw Brands LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Pusifica, Acidea, Affeco, et al. (Jurisdictions unstated, alleged to be foreign)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: FERENCE & ASSOCIATES Associates
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00538, W.D. Pa., 03/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants allegedly conduct business in and target consumers within the judicial district, and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pet feeder and soothing devices infringe a patent related to an animal feeder system designed to distract and calm pets.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the consumer pet products market, addressing the challenge of keeping animals calm and stationary during activities like bathing or grooming.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was issued on November 17, 2020, and that Plaintiff provides constructive notice of the patent by marking its products. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-01-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,834,894 Priority Date |
| 2020-11-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,834,894 Issued |
| 2023-03-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,834,894 - “Animal Feeder System and Method of Use”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,834,894 (“Animal Feeder System and Method of Use”), issued November 17, 2020 (the “’894 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of keeping an animal “stationary, calm, and distracted” during necessary but potentially stressful tasks like bathing, nail trimming, or medical examinations (’894 Patent, col. 1:33-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an animal feeder system, typically made from a single piece of elastomeric material, that solves this problem by combining a treat-dispensing surface with an attachment mechanism. The system features an “obverse side” with a feeding section containing a “plurality of nubs” to slow an animal’s consumption of a spreadable treat, and a “reverse side” with suction cups to affix the device to a surface like a tub wall (’894 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-35; Fig. 1A). This design is intended to occupy and calm the animal for an extended period.
- Technical Importance: The described system provides a method to calm an animal by engaging it in licking, which is described as a “natural act which calms animals down,” while keeping it in a desired location for tasks like grooming or training (’894 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that the Accused Products infringe at least independent Claim 13 (’Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 13 include:
- An elastomeric body with an obverse and reverse side.
- A feeding section on the obverse side with a plurality of elastomeric nubs and a surrounding rim.
- A plurality of suction cups on the reverse side.
- A specific arrangement wherein the nubs form "a plurality of circular rows... each row of increasing radii from a center of the feeding section with a single nub in the center of the feeding section."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," which are described as "knock-off versions of Plaintiff's Slow Treater® Brand dog soothing device" (Compl. ¶1-2). The complaint specifically shows six representative types of accused products, labeled "Type 1" through "Type 6" (Compl. ¶3-4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to be pet soothing devices that function by holding a spreadable treat, such as peanut butter, on a surface with nubs designed to slow the pet's consumption (Compl. ¶1). They are designed to be affixed to a flat surface, such as a bathtub wall, via suction cups on the back of the device (Compl. ¶25). A visual in the complaint shows a dog licking one such device mounted to a wall (Compl. p. 13). The complaint alleges that these products are "substantially inferior to the genuine product" and are marketed on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶5, 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’894 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elastomeric body having an obverse side and a reverse side; | The accused products are made of a flexible material, identified in one instance as "Silicone material," and possess a front (obverse) and back (reverse) side. A screenshot of an infringing product notes that the back contains suction cups. | ¶3; p. 24; p. 29 | col. 6:53-57 |
| a feeding section on the obverse side, said feeding section having a plurality of elastomeric nubs and a rim disposed therearound, wherein the plurality of elastomeric nubs help hold food disposed therein and slow an animal's ability to lick the food therefrom; | The accused products feature a top surface with multiple protuberances ("nubs") contained within a raised outer edge ("rim"), designed to hold a treat and distract a pet. A visual depicts a Type 1 infringing product with these features. | ¶3 | col. 5:48-51 |
| a plurality of suction cups on the reverse side to suction the animal feeder system to a surface; | The reverse side of the accused products includes multiple suction cups for attachment to a surface. A product image from defendant "buyhere365" shows the back of the device and its suction cups. | ¶25; p. 24 | col. 5:3-10 |
| wherein the plurality of nubs are arranged adjacent to one another in a circular pattern to form a circular row of nubs, wherein the feeding section comprises a plurality of circular rows of nubs, each row of increasing radii from a center of the feeding section with a single nub in the center of the feeding section. | The nubs on certain accused products are arranged in concentric circles radiating from a central point. A visual example is provided showing the "Type 1 Infringing Product" with this specific geometric layout. | ¶3 | col. 6:25-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 13 requires a very specific geometric arrangement: "circular rows of nubs... with a single nub in the center." A primary issue will be whether this language literally reads on the full range of accused products. Visual evidence in the complaint suggests that some accused products, such as the "Type 3" product with paw prints or the "Type 5" star-shaped product, may not have this precise concentric circle pattern or a single central nub (Compl. pp. 3-4). This raises the question of whether these alternative designs fall outside the literal scope of the claim.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that each of the accused products sold by the numerous defendants meets every limitation, particularly the "single nub in the center" requirement. The complaint’s visual evidence for some accused products is not sufficiently detailed to confirm the presence and nature of the centermost feature, suggesting a potential proof challenge for the Plaintiff.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a single nub in the center of the feeding section"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the final, and most specific, limitation of Claim 13. Its construction is critical because the infringement analysis for many accused products may depend on whether their central feature—which could be a depression, a cluster of nubs, or an empty space—meets this precise structural requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term as a clear point of potential non-infringement for products that lack this exact feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the overall purpose of the nubs as being "configured to slow the rate at which an animal feeds" ('894 Patent, col. 6:49-51). A party could argue that the term should be functionally interpreted to include any central feature that initiates a feed-slowing pattern.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific and structural. Embodiments such as Figure 1B clearly depict a lone, distinct nub at the geometric center, surrounded by circular rows of other nubs (’894 Patent, Fig. 1B). A party could argue this specific disclosed structure defines the required meaning, excluding other central configurations.
The Term: "circular rows of nubs"
Context and Importance: This term defines the specific pattern of the nubs. Its interpretation will be central to determining whether products with alternative patterns (e.g., the paw prints on the "Type 3" product or the radial arms on the "Type 5" star-shaped product) infringe (Compl. pp. 3-4).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses controlling an animal's feeding rate by varying the "arrangement and size of the plurality of nubs" generally, not just through circular rows ('894 Patent, col. 2:40-42). This could support an argument that "circular rows" encompasses any pattern that achieves a similar result in a similar way.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language is geometrically precise. A party would argue that "circular rows" requires discrete, concentric circles of nubs as depicted in Figure 1B, and that other patterns, such as grids or spokes, are not "circular rows."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, stating Defendants make, use, and sell "knock-offs that infringe at least one claim" (Compl. ¶45). The factual basis appears to be the sale of products whose only intended use is the patented method, combined with alleged knowledge of the patent.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the grounds that Defendants had "notice of or knew of the Plaintiff's Patent" and proceeded to infringe deliberately (Compl. ¶47). The complaint asserts that Defendants knowingly engaged in illegal infringing activities (Compl. ¶35), potentially relying on constructive notice via Plaintiff's product marking (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of geometric scope: can the claim limitation requiring "circular rows of nubs... with a single nub in the center" be interpreted to literally cover the diverse range of accused products, some of which appear to feature different patterns (e.g., paw prints, stars) and may lack a distinct, single central nub?
- A key alternative question will be one of functional equivalence: if the accused products do not literally infringe, does an alternative nub pattern, such as the one on the star-shaped product, perform substantially the same function (slowing feeding) in substantially the same way (creating obstacles for the tongue) to achieve substantially the same result (distracting the animal) as the claimed geometric arrangement?
- A significant procedural question, given the dozens of named defendants, will be joinder and case management: does the complaint’s allegation of a "conspiracy to distribute and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶8) provide a sufficient basis to litigate against this large and varied group of online sellers in a single action, or will their activities be deemed too distinct, requiring separate proceedings?