DCT

3:24-cv-00857

Shenzhenshixinjihaikejihehuoqiye v. Automated Pet Care Products LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00857, W.D. Wis., 12/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because the Defendant operates a manufacturing facility in the district and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its automated litter box does not infringe Defendant’s patent and/or that the patent is invalid, following Defendant’s infringement complaints submitted through Amazon’s intellectual property program.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns automated, self-cleaning litter boxes that use a rotational sifting mechanism to separate waste from clean litter, a significant market segment for pet care products.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant filing at least one complaint via the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express Program, alleging Plaintiff's product infringed the patent-in-suit. These actions led to the removal of Plaintiff's product listings from the Amazon platform, creating the basis for a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-10-20 ’889 Patent Priority Date
2010-01-19 ’889 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-01 Plaintiff began selling Neakasa M1 Litter Box (approximate date)
2024-11-04 Defendant initiated infringement complaint with Amazon (approximate date)
2024-12-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,889 - "Apparatus for a litter box," issued January 19, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies drawbacks in prior art automated litter boxes. "Raking" or "combing" methods are described as prone to clogging, smearing waste, and breaking clumps into smaller, unfilterable pieces (’889 Patent, col. 1:36-54). Conversely, existing "sifting" methods often required enclosed, globe-like structures that many cats refuse to use and that limit the size of waste clumps that can be removed (’889 Patent, col. 2:58-col. 3:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated litter box that uses a sifting method within an unenclosed design to be more appealing to cats (’889 Patent, col. 4:1-4). The apparatus uses a two-part system: a "First Unit Assembly" holds the litter and rotates on top of a stationary "Second Unit Assembly" base containing a motor (’889 Patent, col. 7:8-18). This rotation causes litter to pass through a screen into a temporary holding compartment, while larger solid waste clumps are separated and directed into a waste receptacle (’889 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:26-36). The motor then reverses rotation to return the clean, filtered litter from the temporary compartment back into the main litter area (’889 Patent, col. 8:37-55).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to combine the clog-resistance and effectiveness of the sifting method with the "open-air" design of traditional litter boxes, which the patent asserts is preferred by a larger population of household cats (’889 Patent, col. 3:51-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses on independent claim 1, and states that all other claims depend from it (Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first unit assembly comprising an unenclosed compartment open from above, a temporary litter storage compartment, and a screen between them.
    • A second unit assembly comprising a base.
    • Means within the base for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly above the base.
    • Means within the base for receiving a waste receptacle.
    • Means for altering the orientation of the first unit assembly relative to the second unit assembly.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed "any valid and enforceable claim of the '889 patent" (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Neakasa® M1 Litter Box ("the M1") (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the M1 as an "automated, self-cleaning litter box" sold by Plaintiff on Amazon since approximately March 2024 (Compl. ¶7). The complaint includes a marketing image of the M1, which shows a cat inside an open-top litter device with a base and an associated smartphone application interface (Compl. p. 2). The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendant’s infringement complaints to Amazon, all of Plaintiff's listings for the M1 have been removed from the platform (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the plaintiff denies that its product meets the limitations of the asserted patent claims. The complaint’s allegations focus on a specific limitation in claim 1.

The complaint alleges that the M1 product does not infringe claim 1 of the ’889 Patent because it does not satisfy the limitation requiring a "means within the base for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly above the base" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint states that the M1 does not meet this limitation either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further states that additional noninfringement arguments are detailed in a letter to Amazon, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶15). However, Exhibit B was not attached to the publicly filed complaint, so the full basis for the noninfringement allegation is not available for analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "means within the base for movably and rotatably supporting the first unit assembly above the base" (from Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This term is explicitly identified by the Plaintiff as a basis for noninfringement (Compl. ¶14). Practitioners may focus on this term because it is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The scope of such a claim is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited function, and equivalents thereof. The entire infringement analysis for this element may therefore depend on identifying the corresponding structure in the ’889 Patent and comparing it to the mechanism used in the accused M1 product.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader interpretation might contend that "equivalents" should encompass any modern mechanism that achieves rotational support, even if it differs from the patent's specific disclosure. However, the means-plus-function format itself constrains the scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification discloses a specific structure corresponding to this function: "The First Unit Assembly 100 rests on rollers 210 and a sprocket 222 of the Second Unit Assembly 200, and is prevented from moving laterally by a track 110" (’889 Patent, col. 7:13-18). A party arguing for a narrower construction would assert that the claim is limited to this "rollers, sprocket, and track" structure and its structural equivalents, raising the question of whether the M1's support mechanism is structurally different and non-equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Not applicable.
  • Invalidity: The complaint includes a count for a "Declaration of Invalidity of the '899 Patent" (Compl. p. 4). Plaintiff alleges the ’889 Patent is invalid for failing to meet the conditions of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty), 103 (non-obviousness), and/or 112 (written description, enablement, definiteness) (Compl. ¶19). The complaint states that the specific bases for invalidity are set forth in the same letter to Amazon (Ex. B) that details the noninfringement arguments (Compl. ¶20). As that exhibit is not provided, the factual basis for the invalidity allegations cannot be analyzed.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and equivalence: How will the court construe the means-plus-function term "means... for movably and rotatably supporting"? Specifically, is the support mechanism used in the Neakasa M1 Litter Box structurally equivalent to the "rollers, sprocket, and track" system disclosed in the ’889 Patent?
  2. An immediate procedural and evidentiary question is the basis for invalidity: The complaint makes broad allegations of invalidity but incorporates the specific grounds by reference to an exhibit not included with the filing. A key development will be when Plaintiff formally articulates its invalidity contentions, which will define the prior art and other arguments at issue.
  3. The case also raises a question of commercial impact: Plaintiff seeks damages caused by the delisting of its product on Amazon (Compl., Request for Relief ¶C). This raises the issue of whether Defendant's actions through the Amazon APEX program were improper, which may depend on the ultimate findings of infringement and validity.