DCT
2:20-cv-01768
Cheddar Creations Inc v. Pawico
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cheddar Creations, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Pawico (Unknown)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Atkins Intellectual Property, PLLC; Johnson Legal PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01768, W.D. Wash., 09/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant transacting business in Washington and committing tortious acts, including patent infringement, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pawico Roller Pet Hair Remover" infringes a patent related to a manual, non-adhesive cleaning instrument.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld, reusable mechanical lint and pet hair rollers that use a system of brushes to capture and store debris.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint, a First Amended Complaint, states that Plaintiff Cheddar Creations, Inc. is the successor-in-interest to ChomChom, a Washington corporation whose assets, including an exclusive license to the patent-in-suit, were acquired by Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-03-04 | ’706 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-02-21 | ’706 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-12-16 | Plaintiff acquires assets of exclusive licensee |
| 2022-09-23 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,117,706 - "Manual Cleaning Instrument" (issued Feb. 21, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the burdens associated with conventional cleaning instruments, such as adhesive rollers that require the user to peel off and dispose of used sheets, and other mechanical cleaners that are difficult to use in tight spaces or produce unpleasant noise (’706 Patent, col. 1:19-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a manual cleaning device that uses a revolving "dust trapping body" equipped with brushes. As the user moves the instrument back and forth, this body rotates against stationary "dust removal" bodies. This interaction scrapes debris collected by the revolving brushes into an internal, hollow collection chamber. The chamber can then be emptied by opening a lid, eliminating the need for disposable adhesive sheets (’706 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-41, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a reusable, silent, and compact alternative to adhesive-based rollers, intended to be more convenient and less wasteful (’706 Patent, col. 1:53-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains one independent claim, Claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A "base" with an internal space, a lower "introduction port" for dust, and an upper "discharge port" with a "lid".
- A "hollow dust trapping body" held inside the base, able to revolve, with a "dust collection opening" at the top.
- "front" and "rear dust removal bodies" held in the base, which are urged to "abut" the dust trapping body.
- The dust trapping body having an "arcuate" outer face with a central "protrusion", dividing the surface into front and rear regions, each with an "inclined pile" brush.
- The dust removal bodies having corresponding "inclined pile" brushes that face the trapping body.
- A "handle" extending rearward from the base.
- A "buffer member" that contacts and stops the revolution of the dust trapping body after it has revolved a "prescribed angle".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Pawico Roller Pet Hair Remover" (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a manual device for removing pet hair (Compl. ¶4). Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows the device being used by rolling it back and forth across a fabric sofa to remove what appears to be pet hair (Compl. p. 5, Table 1, Capture 1). A still frame from the accused video shows a close-up of the cleaning device, which includes branding from the Plaintiff's own website (Compl. p. 6, Table 1, Capture 3). The complaint alleges the product is a "colorable imitation" of the patented invention (Compl. p. 7, ¶4). The complaint does not provide specific details on the internal mechanics of the accused product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or element-by-element allegations. It asserts generally that the accused product is "covered by, embody, or practice one or more of the claims of the ‘706 patent" (Compl. ¶11). The following chart summarizes the apparent infringement theory, mapping the elements of Claim 1 to the accused product's functionality as can be inferred from the complaint's general allegations and visual evidence.
’706 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base which has an internal space and which is provided with an introduction port for taking in dust ... and also provided with a discharge port for discharging dust ... provided with a lid | The Pawico Roller Pet Hair Remover is alleged to have a main body (base) with a lower opening to collect hair and an upper chamber with a lid for disposal of collected debris. | ¶11 | col. 2:1-4 |
| a hollow dust trapping body which is held inside the internal space of the base so as to be able to revolve in a front-to-rear direction, and which is provided with a dust collection opening at the top | The product's function, as depicted, suggests the presence of an internal, revolving roller that collects hair and deposits it into a hollow chamber. | ¶11; p. 5, Table 1 | col. 2:5-9 |
| a front dust removal body and a rear dust removal body which are held in the base ... and which are constantly urged so that the dust removal faces thereof abut the dust trapping body | To function as a reusable roller that self-cleans into a chamber, the product is alleged to contain internal, stationary components that scrape debris from the revolving roller. | ¶11 | col. 2:9-13 |
| the dust trapping body has an outer peripheral face which is arcuate ... and also a protrusion which protrudes radially outward | The external shape and rolling function of the accused product suggest an arcuate surface, and it is alleged to have the claimed protrusion for engaging fabric. | ¶11; p. 5, Table 1 | col. 2:13-24 |
| a front dust trapping brush ... and a rear dust trapping brush ... each comprising an inclined pile | The hair-collecting function of the accused product is alleged to be performed by directional brushes on the revolving roller. | ¶11 | col. 2:24-34 |
| a front dust removal brush ... and a rear dust removal brush ... each comprising an inclined pile | The self-cleaning function is alleged to be performed by corresponding directional brushes on the stationary removal bodies. | ¶11 | col. 2:35-45 |
| a buffer member with which the edge of the dust collection opening of the dust trapping body ... comes into contact when the dust trapping body has revolved a prescribed angle | The accused product is alleged to contain an internal mechanism that limits the rotation of the roller to enable the back-and-forth cleaning action. | ¶11 | col. 2:47-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question for the court will be whether the internal construction of the Pawico product matches the specific architecture of Claim 1. The complaint provides no direct evidence of the accused device’s internal mechanism. Discovery will be required to determine if it contains distinct "front and rear dust removal bodies" and a "buffer member" that functions as claimed, or if it achieves a similar result through a different mechanical design.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "buffer member" may be a focus. The dispute may center on whether any part of the device's housing that incidentally stops the roller's movement can meet this limitation, or if the claim requires a distinct component with the primary purpose of stopping rotation, as depicted in the patent's preferred embodiment (’706 Patent, Fig. 2, item 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a buffer member"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final limitation of Claim 1 and defines a specific mechanical feature that stops the rotation of the dust trapping body. Whether the accused device contains a structure that falls within the scope of this term will be a critical question for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it represents a specific functional element that may be absent or designed differently in the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim language is primarily functional ("a buffer member with which the edge ... comes into contact ... [to] stop revolution"), suggesting that any component that performs this stopping function, regardless of its specific form or material, should be considered a "buffer member" (’706 Patent, col. 12:50-52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where the buffer member is "made of a soft material and shaped like a doughnut" and is a distinct component from the housing (’706 Patent, col. 6:46-49; Fig. 2). A party could argue that this disclosure limits the term to a dedicated, soft, shock-absorbing component and does not cover, for example, incidental contact with a hard plastic part of the main housing.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief requests a determination that the defendant has induced infringement of the ’706 patent (Compl. p. 7, ¶2). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for an inducement claim, such as referencing defendant's instructional materials.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that infringement was and will be committed with "knowledge of the ’706 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation is not supported by specific facts indicating pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter, and may serve as a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-suit infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of factual proof: Does the accused "Pawico Roller Pet Hair Remover" actually contain the internal mechanical structure recited in Claim 1? The case will likely depend on evidence obtained during discovery revealing whether the product has the claimed configuration of a revolving trapping body, distinct front and rear removal bodies, and a rotation-limiting buffer member.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: Can the term "buffer member" be construed to cover any internal surface of the device housing that incidentally stops the roller's rotation, or is it limited to a distinct, purpose-built component as illustrated in the patent's specification? The court’s construction of this term could be dispositive on the issue of infringement.