Doggyphone LLC v. Tomofun LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DoggyPhone LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: Tomofun, LLC (California) and Tomofun Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00243, W.D. Wash., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Tomofun LLC resides in or has a regular and established place of business in the district, and Tomofun Co., Ltd. is a foreign entity that may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Furbo Dog Camera products infringe a patent related to internet-connected devices for remote human-pet communication and treat delivery.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the growing market for smart pet accessories, enabling owners to remotely monitor, communicate with, and reward their pets via a smartphone application.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE49,696, is a reissued patent, which may introduce issues of claim scope and intervening rights for the defense. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent and the alleged infringement in October 2023, prior to filing suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE49,696, titled “Internet Canine Communication Device and Method,” reissued on October 17, 2023 (’696 Patent).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a drawback with existing remote pet monitoring systems, noting that while internet cameras allow owners to see a pet, the pet cannot typically operate the input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse) required for two-way interaction (’696 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "Internet Canine Communication System" (ICCS) comprising a base station and a remote client device (e.g., a smartphone) (’696 Patent, Abstract). The base station is equipped with a camera, microphone, speaker, and a treat dispenser, allowing a user to see, hear, speak to, and reward their pet remotely (’696 Patent, col. 2:45-49). The system is also designed to facilitate training the pet to interact with the base station, for instance, to "answer" a call from the owner (’696 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:13-15).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to transform passive pet monitoring into an active, two-way communication channel, leveraging internet connectivity to deepen the human-pet bond when the owner is away (’696 Patent, col. 1:49-51).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 20 (’696 Patent, col. 14:4-34; Compl. ¶11).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 20, a system claim, include:
    • A base station with: a treat bin, a treat dispenser, one or more output devices (including an audio device), an input device (microphone, motion detector, or camera), and a microprocessor.
    • A computer application on a mobile device or computer for receiving user input and transmitting a treat delivery command to the base station.
    • The microprocessor is configured to:
      • Cause treat delivery and produce an associated noise upon receiving the command.
      • Play audio/video data received from the mobile device.
      • Automatically begin transmitting audio/image data from its input device after receiving an input indicative of a sound or action.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Furbo Dog Camera devices" are identified as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes a photograph of one such device, which is a vertical dispenser with a camera lens and a wood-finished top (Compl. ¶10, Image).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Products consist of a base station integrated with treat storage, dispensing mechanisms, audio output, and camera/microphone inputs (Compl. ¶12). A microprocessor is alleged to coordinate two-way audio/video communication with a user’s mobile application. The functionality is described as dispensing treats upon user command, emitting audio associated with treat delivery, playing audio/video from the user's device, and "automatically initiate[ing] audio and/or video transmission after detecting inputs indicative of pet sounds or actions" (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products practice each limitation of claim 20 of the ’696 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The core allegations are summarized in the chart below, constructed from the narrative description of infringement provided in the complaint.

RE49,696 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement read depends on whether the general allegation of detecting "pet sounds or actions" (Compl. ¶12) meets the claim limitation of receiving an "input... indicative of a sound or action." The defense may argue that the specific types of inputs contemplated by the patent (e.g., a dog physically pushing a panel to "answer" a call) are narrower than the functionality of the accused device.
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question may be how the accused Furbo device technically implements its "pet sounds or actions" detection. The evidence will need to show whether this feature functions to trigger the automatic transmission of audio/video data back to the user in the manner required by the final limitation of claim 20.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "an input from the input device indicative of a sound or action"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the trigger for the base station's automatic transmission of data back to the user. The patent’s infringement theory rests on the accused product having a corresponding trigger. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether general bark detection or motion sensing in the accused product infringes a claim that, in some embodiments, describes a more deliberate interaction by the pet.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, using the general terms "sound or action" and listing "a microphone, a motion detector, or a camera" as potential input devices, which suggests the claim is not limited to a specific type of action (’696 Patent, col. 14:10-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a specific embodiment where the "action" is a dog pushing a physical "activation cover 110" to accept a call or get a treat, which could be argued to limit the scope of "action" to a deliberate, interactive input from the pet (’696 Patent, col. 5:29-38; FIG. 7).

• The Term: "a noise associated with the delivery of the pet treat"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the audio cue provided to the pet. The dispute may turn on whether any sound that happens to coincide with treat delivery infringes, or if the claim requires a specific, intentional notification sound.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "associated" is non-specific and could be read to cover any sound that accompanies the mechanical action of the dispenser. The claim does not require the noise to be a "notification" or an "alert."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "bell 108" that is "remotely activate[d]" to audibly signal the treat delivery to the dog, suggesting the "noise" is an intentional signal rather than an incidental byproduct of the dispenser's operation (’696 Patent, col. 5:8-12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b)–(c) but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users on the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’696 Patent and its infringement since at least October 2023. This knowledge is alleged to stem from "written and verbal notice, including an email exchange" between the parties (Compl. ¶16).

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

This case will likely center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical operation. The outcome may depend on the court’s determination of the following:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "action," as used in the context of the patent's disclosed embodiments involving a pet's physical interaction with a device, read on the accused product's alleged general detection of "pet... actions" via its sensors?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional causality: Does the accused product's system architecture link the detection of a "sound or action" to the automatic transmission of audio/video data back to the user, as required by the claim's logic, or do these functions operate independently?
• Finally, the reissue status of the patent raises a potential question of intervening rights: If the asserted claim was substantively amended during reissue, the Defendant may be able to shield some of its conduct from damages, a question that will require analysis of the patent's prosecution history.