DCT
2:19-cv-01901
Doggyphone LLC v. Tomofun LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Doggyphone LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Tomofun, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01901, W.D. Wash., 11/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Tomofun resides or is found in the district, maintains continuous contacts, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including alleged acts of infringement, occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FURBO interactive pet camera infringes a patent related to a system for remote communication and interaction between a human and a pet.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves internet-connected devices that facilitate remote interaction between pet owners and their pets, typically including features such as two-way audio/video, and remote treat dispensing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a notice letter regarding the patent-in-suit on November 1, 2019, approximately three weeks prior to filing the lawsuit. The patent-in-suit claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2012.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-06-02 | U.S. Patent 9,723,813 Priority Date |
| 2017-08-08 | U.S. Patent 9,723,813 Issues |
| 2019-11-01 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-11-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,723,813 - "Internet Canine Communication Device and Method," issued August 8, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while simple internet cameras allow owners to monitor pets remotely, they lack interactivity because pets cannot operate conventional input devices like keyboards or mice to engage in two-way communication (’813 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an "Internet Canine Communication System" (ICCS) that integrates a treat dispenser with two-way audio/visual communication hardware. The system allows a remote user to initiate a call, which prompts the device to dispense a treat and play a sound to alert the pet. The patent describes a training process whereby the pet learns to "answer" the call by physically interacting with the device (e.g., pushing a cover), which in turn activates the camera and microphone for a live communication session with the remote owner (’813 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-39).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to advance beyond passive monitoring by creating a system for active, treat-rewarded interaction that can be initiated by the owner and responded to by the pet, thereby facilitating more meaningful remote engagement (’813 Patent, col. 1:45-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 7 are:
- A system comprising a treat bin, a food dispenser, an audio device, a delivery module, and a control.
- The delivery module, in response to a command, dispenses a treat, plays an audio signal to notify the pet of the treat's availability, and receives input from the pet.
- The system, in response to a command from a remote user, transmits the treat delivery command to the module.
- The system plays live audio/video from the remote user.
- The system transmits live audio/video of the pet to the remote user, with this transmission beginning "in response to input from the pet."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is an "interactive pet camera under at least the brand name FURBO" (Compl. ¶10). An image of the FURBO product is provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the FURBO is a "pet camera with treat dispenser designed just for dogs" that allows a user to "see, talk, and toss treats" via a mobile application (Compl. ¶13). It is alleged to feature two-way audio, a camera for transmitting video to the app, a treat tossing mechanism, and a "barking sensor" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint further alleges the FURBO includes "Real-time Barking Alert" and "Dog Nanny" features, which transmit alerts and live video to the user's mobile device in response to detected barking or other pet activity (Compl. p.5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a claim chart with annotated images mapping elements of claim 7 to features of the FURBO device. One such image is a diagram of the FURBO with callouts identifying the "Treat bin," "Audio device," and "Food dispenser" (Compl. ¶13).
'813 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a treat bin; | The FURBO device includes a "Treat bin accessible under cover." | ¶13 | col. 12:18 |
| a food dispenser that dispenses treats from the treat bin; | The FURBO includes a "Food dispenser" and "tosses a treat via the dispenser." | ¶13 | col. 12:19 |
| an audio device; | The FURBO includes an "Audio device" such as a "Mic & Speaker." | ¶13 | col. 12:20 |
| a delivery module that... plays via the audio device an audio signal that notifies the pet of availability of a treat; | The FURBO "plays a chime when tossing a treat," which the complaint alleges is analogous to "clicker training" and notifies the pet. | ¶13 | col. 12:24-25 |
| a delivery module that... receives input from the pet; | The FURBO "receives input from the pet via the microphone, video camera, and/or barking sensor." | ¶13 | col. 12:26 |
| a control that transmits to the delivery module a treat delivery command... | A mobile app is used to transmit a delivery command via a "Treat Toss" button to the FURBO's delivery module. A screenshot of the mobile app interface illustrates this button (Compl. p.5). | p.5 | col. 12:27-29 |
| wherein the system... transmits to the remote client device at least one of live audio or video of the pet, wherein the system begins transmission... in response to input from the pet. | The FURBO begins transmission in response to pet input via its "Real-time Barking Alert" or "Dog Nanny" features. Screenshots show alerts for "Barking Alert" and "Dog Activity Alert," which prompt the user to view live video (Compl. p.5). | p.5 | col. 12:35-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "receives input from the pet." The patent’s detailed description emphasizes a deliberate, physical action by the pet, such as pushing an "activation cover" to "answer" a call (’813 Patent, col. 4:23-28). The complaint alleges this limitation is met by the FURBO’s detection of a bark or general activity via sensors (Compl. p.5). The dispute may focus on whether the claimed "input" requires a volitional act by the pet intended to interact with the device, or if it can be read to cover passive, ambient data like a bark.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the "audio signal that notifies the pet of availability of a treat" may also be contested. The complaint alleges a "chime" that is played "when tossing a treat" meets this limitation (Compl. ¶13). A court may need to determine whether a sound that is contemporaneous with the treat dispensing functions as a "notification" in the manner claimed, or if the patent requires a pre-dispensing signal designed to summon the pet to the device, as described in the training protocol (’813 Patent, col. 4:30-39).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "input from the pet"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. A narrow construction requiring a deliberate, physical action by the pet to operate the device could present a challenge to the Plaintiff’s theory, which relies on sensor-based detection of barking or ambient activity. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's primary embodiment differs substantially from the accused functionality.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discloses that the "input" may include "detecting a sound (e.g., a bark detected via a microphone of the ICCS), detecting heat (e.g., via an infrared sensor), or the like" (’813 Patent, col. 5:12-14). This language may support a construction that is not limited to physical interaction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s most detailed embodiment describes a training regimen where the dog learns to "push open the activation cover 110" to "answer' the phone (or 'accept' the call)" (’813 Patent, col. 4:23-28, 63-64). This framing of the interaction as a responsive, trained behavior could support a narrower definition requiring a volitional act.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of "indirect and/or contributory infringement" (Compl. ¶15) but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as referencing instructions in user manuals that would encourage infringing use by customers.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s "full knowledge" of the ’813 patent and its alleged disregard of a "November 1, 2019 notice letter" sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶17). This allegation appears to be based on post-notice conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "input from the pet," which is described in the patent's primary embodiment as a deliberate physical action (e.g., pushing a cover to "answer a call"), be construed to cover the passive detection of a bark or general motion by the accused product's sensors?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's "chime," which is played contemporaneously with the dispensing of a treat, perform the function of an "audio signal that notifies the pet of availability of a treat" as required by the claim, or does the patent contemplate a distinct, pre-emptive signal intended to summon the pet to the device for interaction?