DCT
2:23-cv-01460
Aquapaw Brands LLC v. Fed Store
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aquapaw Brands LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Fed Store, Chairlish, DONALD'S STORE, et al. (Jurisdictions unstated, alleged to be individuals and/or business entities)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: FERENCE & ASSOCIATES Associates
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01460, W.D. Pa., 08/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in the judicial district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there, and Defendants caused harm within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of various pet licking mats infringe a patent covering an animal feeder system designed to distract pets.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to pet care accessories, specifically devices that use a food treat to occupy and calm an animal during activities like bathing or grooming.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit claims priority to an earlier non-provisional application and a provisional application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-01-09 | U.S. Patent No. 11,419,309 Priority Date |
| 2022-08-23 | U.S. Patent No. 11,419,309 Issue Date |
| 2023-08-15 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,419,309 - Animal Feeder System and Method of Use
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,419,309, "Animal Feeder System and Method of Use," issued August 23, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of keeping an animal "stationary, calm, and distracted" while performing tasks such as bathing, trimming nails, or conducting a medical examination ('309 Patent, col. 1:28-37). Traditional feeders are often emptied too quickly or are not sanitary for repeated use with different animals ('309 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an animal feeder, typically made of an elastomeric material, that solves this problem through a combination of features. Its obverse (top) side has a "feeding section" with a "plurality of nubs" that hold a food treat and are configured to slow down the animal's ability to lick it all away ('309 Patent, col. 2:21-24). The reverse (bottom) side has one or more suction cups to secure the feeder to a surface, such as a bathtub wall ('309 Patent, col. 2:24-25). Certain embodiments also include a "guard" extending from the feeding section to keep the surrounding area free from saliva ('309 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a user-friendly and sanitary method to occupy an animal for an extended period, which is useful for pet owners, trainers, and veterinarians ('309 Patent, col. 1:62-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’309 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- An elastomeric body with an obverse side and a reverse side.
- A feeding section on the obverse side with a plurality of elastomeric nubs to hold food and slow an animal's licking.
- One or more suction cups on the reverse side to suction the feeder to a surface.
- A guard extending laterally from the feeding section to keep the surface underneath free from saliva, where the guard is integral to the body, planar, and has the suction cups disposed on its reverse side.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "knock-off versions" of Plaintiff's Slow Treater® product, referring to them generally as "Infringing Products" and specifically as "Type 1," "Type 2," and "Type 3" products (Compl. ¶2, ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as dog soothing devices or pet licking mats sold by numerous defendants through online storefronts on platforms like Amazon.com, Aliexpress.com, and others (Compl. ¶1, ¶12). A visual in the complaint depicts the "Type 1 Infringing Product" as a circular blue mat with a textured top surface and a bottom surface covered in suction cups (Compl. p. 3). Another image shows a dog licking the plaintiff's product suctioned to a tiled wall, illustrating the intended use for both the patented and accused products (Compl. p. 14).
- The complaint alleges these products are "substantially inferior" to the genuine product and that their sale is part of a "conspiracy to distribute and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5, ¶8). A screenshot provided for "Donald's store" shows a typical accused product: a red, circular lick mat with a dense pattern of surface protrusions (Compl. p. 25, Schedule B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elastomeric body having an observe side and a reverse side | The accused products are mats made of a flexible material, possessing a top side for food and a bottom side for attachment. | ¶3, ¶46 | col. 2:20-21 |
| a feeding section on the observe side, said feeding section having a plurality of elastomeric nubs to help hold food disposed therein and slow an animal's ability to lick food therefrom | The top surfaces of the accused products feature multiple protuberances or textures, which the complaint alleges are "nubs" designed to hold a treat and slow a pet's feeding. The complaint provides images of various accused products showing these features (Compl. p. 3). | ¶3, ¶46 | col. 2:21-24 |
| one or more suctions cups on the reverse side to suction the animal feeder to a surface | The accused products are alleged to have suction cups on their back side for fastening to a wall or other surface. This is depicted in an image of the "Type 1" product (Compl. p. 3). | ¶3, ¶46 | col. 2:24-25 |
| a guard extending laterally from at least one section of the feeding section... wherein the guard is integral to the elastomeric body and the guard is planar, and wherein the one or more suction cups are disposed on the reverse side of the guard | The complaint alleges infringement of the full claim, which implies that a feature of the accused products meets this limitation. The flat, peripheral area of the accused mats that extends beyond the textured feeding section could be the basis for this allegation. | ¶46 | col. 9:49-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the "guard" limitation. The question is whether the outer, undifferentiated flat portion of the accused licking mats can be considered a "guard" as claimed. The claim requires the guard to be "planar," "integral," and to function "to keep the surface underneath the guard free from saliva, drool, or slobber." The defendants may argue that their products lack a distinct structure that meets this functional requirement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on visual comparisons and general allegations without providing specific evidence (e.g., tests or expert analysis) that the accused products' features perform the claimed functions. A key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products' alleged "guard" actually performs the saliva-blocking function described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "guard"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused products appear to be simple, single-piece mats. Whether the flat periphery of these mats meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "guard" will likely be a dispositive issue for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the guard extends "laterally from at least one section of the feeding section" ('309 Patent, col. 9:49-50). A plaintiff might argue this language is broad enough to read on any portion of the elastomeric body that extends beyond the area of the nubs.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "continuous guard 50 surrounding the perimeter of the feeding section 18" and explicitly recites its function is to "keep the surface underneath the guard free from saliva" ('309 Patent, col. 8:33-43; col. 9:52-54). A defendant could argue this implies a structure specifically designed for this purpose, rather than an incidental flat area.
The Term: "nub"
Context and Importance: The complaint specifically addresses the definition of "nub," indicating its importance (Compl. ¶46). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the surface protrusions on the accused products meet the functional and structural definition of the claimed "nubs."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a "nub" as a "protuberance or projection configured to slow the rate at which an animal feeds" and states they "may assume any shape or size" to achieve this function ('309 Patent, col. 3:53-58). This supports a broad, function-oriented definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific, ordered arrangements of nubs, such as "a circular pattern to form a circular row" and varying densities to control the feeding rate ('309 Patent, col. 5:20-28, 5:46-48). A party could argue that to be a "nub" as contemplated by the inventor, the projections must be arranged with the deliberateness described in the patent's embodiments, not just be a random texture.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads contributory and induced infringement, alleging that Defendants make, use, sell, and import the "knock-offs that infringe at least one claim" (Compl. ¶47). The basis for inducement appears to be the sale of products whose design inherently instructs a consumer on how to use them in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants having "notice of or knew of the Plaintiff's Patent" or acting with "reckless disregard" (Compl. ¶37, ¶49). The basis for this knowledge is alleged to be constructive notice via the patent number being marked on the packaging of Plaintiff's own product (Compl. ¶28), as well as Defendants' alleged "willful attempt to pass off their knock-off products as the genuine version" (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "guard," which the patent defines with a specific saliva-blocking function, be construed to cover the simple, flat periphery of the accused lick mats? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for infringement.
- A second central question will be evidentiary: beyond visual similarity, what factual evidence will the Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused products, particularly their alleged "guard" and "nub" features, perform the specific functions in the manner required by the claim limitations?
- Finally, the case presents a procedural challenge common in e-commerce enforcement: how will the Plaintiff establish a "conspiracy" or coordinated action among dozens of disparate online sellers sufficient to treat them as a single group for liability purposes, as alleged in the complaint?