DCT

2:24-cv-00905

Pawesome Pet Products LLC v. LV Liang Kitchenware Store

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00905, W.D. Pa., 06/26/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants conduct business in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and non-resident defendants may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous online merchants are infringing a patent for a pet dental self-cleaning chew toy by manufacturing, marketing, and selling "knock-off" versions of Plaintiffs' BRISTLY® branded product.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the pet care market, specifically a chew toy designed to function as a toothbrush, enabling pets to clean their own teeth through a natural chewing action.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the intellectual property was acquired by Plaintiff Cindy Ghukasyan from the inventor, Petros Dertsakyan, and that Plaintiff Pawesome Pet Products LLC is the exclusive licensee. It also states that Plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest have brought multiple prior lawsuits related to the same intellectual property and that the accused products in this case are similar to those in previous suits.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-03-28 Earliest Priority Date (’838 Patent)
2017-06-01 Plaintiff's BRISTLY® product launched for beta testing
2018-06-01 Crowdfunding campaign launched on Kickstarter.com
2018-10-01 New version of Plaintiff's BRISTLY® product went on sale
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,477,838 Issued
2024-06-26 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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,477,838, "Pet chew toy for dental self-cleaning by domestic pets," issued November 19, 2019 (’838 Patent). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the difficulty and labor-intensive nature of manually cleaning a pet's teeth, a process that can create antagonism between pet and owner. It notes that existing chew toys often fail to provide adequate cleaning, lack a means for the pet to stabilize the toy for effective chewing, and do not incorporate features for dispensing toothpaste. (’838 Patent, col. 1:28-44, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a chew toy with a central body containing bristle-lined grooves that engage a pet's teeth. A key feature is a wide, flat base that allows the pet to hold the toy steady with its paws, facilitating a more forceful and effective chewing action. The design also includes an internal reservoir to hold toothpaste, which can be dispensed through small holes into the grooves during use. (’838 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56-65; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to transform a pet's natural chewing instinct into an effective, autonomous dental hygiene activity by combining cleaning surfaces, a stabilization mechanism, and a toothpaste delivery system. (’838 Patent, col. 2:21-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A central chewing member with at least two "U-shaped grooves" containing "protruding scrubbing elements."
    • A "plurality of nub shaped elements" on the outside surface of the member.
    • A "bottom stabilizing portion" comprising at least one "substantially flat projection" perpendicular to the central member to stabilize the toy in an upright position.
    • An internal "longitudinal cavity" accessible via a "central aperture" and connected to the grooves by at least one "dispensing hole."
    • The entire chew toy is a "unitary structure made of non-toxic material."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies three categories of accused products: "Type 1 Infringing Product," "Type 2 Infringing Product," and "Type 3 Infringing Product." (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are "knock-off versions" of Plaintiffs' BRISTLY® product that "closely mimic the appearance" of the genuine article. (Compl. ¶2). Side-by-side visual comparisons in the complaint depict pet chew toys with a vertical, bristle-lined body and a wide, flat base. The complaint shows a visual of a "Type 1 Infringing Product" that appears nearly identical in shape and color to the Plaintiffs' product. (Compl. p. 4). Another visual depicts a "Type 2 Infringing Product" of similar shape but different color. (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges these products are sold through numerous online storefronts on platforms including Amazon.com, Aliexpress.com, and Walmart.com, leading to consumer confusion and public safety risks due to being made from allegedly inferior materials. (Compl. ¶¶5, 10(a), 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Type 1-3 Products infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’838 Patent and refers to Exhibits 6-8 for a detailed comparison. As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself, the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations and the visual evidence provided within the body of the complaint.

’838 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) a central chewing member, comprising: i) at least two U-shaped grooves that comprise... a plurality of protruding scrubbing elements The accused products are shown to possess a central vertical body with bristle-lined grooves intended for a pet's teeth. ¶3, ¶50 col. 10:67-col. 11:2
ii) a plurality of nub shaped elements positioned on an outside surface of said central chewing member The visuals for the "Type 1" and "Type 2" products appear to show raised nubs or ribs on the exterior of the central body. ¶3, ¶50 col. 11:19-21
iii) at least one central aperture... and an at least one longitudinal cavity... iv) at least one dispensing hole communicating between said... cavity and said... grooves The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these elements. The provided visuals do not show an aperture, internal cavity, or dispensing holes. N/A col. 11:22-30
b) said at least one bottom stabilizing portion, comprising: i) at least one substantially flat projection that stabilizes said chew toy when in use All three types of accused products are depicted with a wide, flat base structure that visually corresponds to the stabilizing portion of the patented device. ¶3, ¶50 col. 11:31-34
wherein said chew toy is a unitary structure The accused products are depicted as single-piece items. ¶3 col. 11:41-43
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A significant question arises from the complaint's lack of evidence regarding the toothpaste reservoir and dispensing system. Claim 1 explicitly requires a "central aperture," a "longitudinal cavity," and a "dispensing hole." The visual evidence in the complaint does not show these features on the accused products. The allegation of infringement of Claim 1 appears to depend entirely on information contained in the un-filed Exhibits 6-8. Without this evidence, there is a potential mismatch between what Claim 1 requires and what the accused products are shown to be.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may involve the specific meaning of "U-shaped grooves." The court may need to determine if the term is limited to the rounded profile shown in the patent's figures or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other channel shapes that may be present in the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bottom stabilizing portion"
  • Context and Importance: This feature is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art chew toys, as it enables the pet to hold the device steady. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the bases of the accused products perform the claimed stabilizing function in the manner described by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its functional language could be a point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating the "projection or projections can take a variety of shapes and sizes," including a "singular projection forming a circular base." (’838 Patent, col. 4:28-30). This may support construing the term to cover any base that allows a pet to hold the toy.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that the projections allow a pet to "fully pin down and stabilize the central member... such that it is fully upright and immobile." (’838 Patent, col. 4:36-39). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a specific degree of stability or a particular configuration optimized for a pet's paws, as depicted in the patent's figures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts both contributory and induced infringement, alleging that Defendants make, use, sell, and import products "that are nearly identical to Plaintiffs' Product." (Compl. ¶51). The factual basis for inducement appears to be the act of selling the products for the intended infringing use by pets, and the basis for contributory infringement is implied by the allegation that the products are "knock-offs" designed for infringement. (Compl. ¶¶2, 51).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendants had "notice of or knew of the '838 patent." (Compl. ¶53). The complaint alleges constructive notice was provided by marking the patent number on the packaging of Plaintiffs' product and on their website. (Compl. ¶30). The allegations that Defendants are "duping and confusing the consuming public" and creating serious public safety risks with inferior products, supported by a graphic photograph of a dog that allegedly required surgery after chewing an infringing product, may be used to argue Defendants' conduct was egregious. (Compl. ¶¶5, 6, 19).

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

  • A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: does the complaint, or evidence to be produced in discovery, show that the accused products contain every element of the asserted Claim 1? Specifically, the case may hinge on whether the accused products possess the claimed internal toothpaste reservoir and dispensing system, features that are required by the claim language but are not apparent from the visual evidence in the complaint.
  • A second issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "bottom stabilizing portion," which is described in functional terms, be construed to cover the base structures of the accused products? The court's interpretation of this and other terms will determine whether the visually similar designs of the accused products fall within the legal boundaries of the patent claim.
  • A third key question is procedural and logistical: given the large number of foreign-based online sellers named as defendants, Plaintiffs may face significant challenges in establishing personal jurisdiction over each entity and, should they prevail, in effectively enforcing any resulting injunction or monetary judgment.