Automated Pet Care Products v. Brands

Background

Automated Pet Care Products, LLC (Whisker) alleged that PurLife Brands, Inc., doing business as Smarty Pear, infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,399,502. The patent concerns a system that lets users remotely monitor and control an automated litter device, including by sending instructions and receiving information from sensors.

Smarty Pear moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it claimed abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept. Separately, Smarty Pear asserted amended counterclaims against Whisker. Whisker moved to dismiss counterclaims 1–7, 9, and 10 under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). Those counterclaims alleged false advertising under federal and California law, statutory and common-law unfair competition, tortious interference, slander, libel, and sought a declaration of non-infringement. The motion did not seek dismissal of counterclaim 8, which sought a declaration that the patent was invalid.

Patent-Eligibility Ruling

The court denied Smarty Pear’s Rule 12(c) motion. Applying the two-step patent-eligibility framework, the court concluded at the first step that the patent was not directed to an abstract idea. The court found that the patent represented a specific technological improvement over existing automated litter devices because it allowed users to remotely monitor conditions and control functions such as cleaning, lighting, and sleep modes. Because the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the court did not reach the second step concerning whether the claims contained an additional inventive concept.

The court also stated that similarities between the patent and earlier technology might support an obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but those similarities alone did not establish ineligibility under § 101.

Counterclaim Rulings

The court granted Whisker’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims at issue.

For Counts 1 and 3, alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act and California law, the court found that Smarty Pear did not identify specific allegedly fake reviews or specific false statements about Smarty Pear’s product. The court also found that the cited online videos and blog review did not allege specific statements about Smarty Pear’s product or facts showing resulting injury.

For Counts 9 and 10, alleging slander and libel, the court found that the statement that Smarty Pear would soon be out of business was an opinion. It also found that statements suggesting Smarty Pear stole Whisker’s intellectual property were inadequately pleaded as verifiably false statements of fact. In addition, the court held that the alleged statements were likely protected by the litigation privilege because they related to the lawsuit and were made to people with a substantial interest in its outcome.

For Count 4, alleging common-law unfair competition, the court found that Smarty Pear did not allege that Whisker passed off its products as Smarty Pear’s products. For Count 2, alleging a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the court found that Smarty Pear adequately pleaded none of the law’s unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair prongs. The alleged predicate violations were insufficient, and the allegations concerning online sponsors, reviews, and supposed connections between individuals did not meet the heightened specificity requirement for fraud-based allegations.

For Counts 5 and 6, alleging interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic relations, the court found the allegations too vague. Smarty Pear did not provide the terms of the alleged contracts with Chewy or Great Pet Media, did not adequately connect Whisker’s conduct to a breach or disruption, and did not sufficiently allege injury or causation. The court also found that the alleged statement concerning a possible transaction with Radio Systems did not plausibly cause the negotiations to end, particularly because negotiations continued for approximately two months afterward.

For Count 7, seeking a declaration of non-infringement, the court found that Smarty Pear made only a conclusory assertion and did not allege supporting facts.

Disposition

The court denied Smarty Pear’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Whisker’s motion to dismiss amended counterclaims 1–7, 9, and 10. The court dismissed those counterclaims without leave to amend because Smarty Pear had already been given one opportunity to correct the deficiencies. The opinion does not state a disposition for counterclaim 8.