Automated Pet Care Products v. Brands

Background

The order addresses the plaintiff’s patent-infringement and false-advertising claims concerning the Leo’s Loo and Leo’s Loo Too products. The opinion refers to the plaintiff as “Whisker.” The plaintiff also asserted trademark-infringement and false-designation claims, but those claims were addressed in a separate order.

Patent claims

The court held that Count 1, based on the ’185 Patent, failed to state a claim because the plaintiff’s own photographs appeared to show that the rear of the product’s chamber was not left uncovered by the bonnet, as required by the patent. The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on photographs depicting disassembled products.

Count 2, based on the ’889 Patent, also failed to state a claim. The videos and images incorporated into the complaint showed only a single, counter-clockwise rotation and did not plausibly allege the reversal of orientation required by the patent claim.

Count 3, based on the ’502 Patent, survived. The court found that the complaint and claim chart adequately alleged the presence of sensors and a controller. The alleged anti-pitch sensor appeared capable of detecting a foreign object in the waste chute, transmitting a signal, and causing the machine to stop, rotate, and enter safety mode. An image of a circuit board supported the inference that the product had the required controller.

False-advertising claims

Counts 6 and 7 survived in part. The court rejected claims based on statements such as the product having features that made it “one of the most convenient” self-cleaning litter boxes and being designed with “kitty safety in mind.” The court treated those statements as non-actionable puffery—general promotional language that consumers would not reasonably understand as specific, provable facts.

The court also found that the description of the Leo’s Loo Too as “the smartest self-cleaning litter box” was puffery. In contrast, the plaintiff adequately alleged false advertising based on the statement that the product was the “First-Ever App-Connected Self-Cleaning Litter Box with Alexa and Google Voice Controls.” The court also allowed claims based on statements that more than half a million cats and owners had transitioned to a litter-free life with Pear Family and that the product’s ultraviolet rays were 99.9% effective at eliminating viruses and bacteria. The court found those statements sufficiently specific and plausibly alleged to be false, material, and likely to influence consumers.

Other claims and defendant

Counts 8 and 9, alleging unfair competition, survived to the extent they were based on adequately alleged patent-infringement, false-advertising, and trademark-infringement claims. The court separately rejected the argument that the plaintiff had not adequately stated claims against Madeiras. The allegations that Madeiras founded Smarty Pear, had prior affiliation with a company that did business with the plaintiff, had insight into the plaintiff’s products and plans, and used that information to introduce a copycat product supported a plausible inference that he was behind the alleged misconduct.

Disposition

The order granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Counts 1 and 2 with leave to amend. An amended complaint was due within 21 days, and the defendant’s response was due within 14 days after any amendment. The plaintiff could instead seek permission to amend later if discovery supported the dismissed claims. If no amendment was filed within 21 days, the defendant’s answer would be due within 28 days. Discovery could proceed immediately.