Your dog wants to talk. You receive a dog-initiated notification, you accept, and the live computer interaction with your canine begins. Was the transmission between you and your dog “in response to input from the pet”? That was the question at issue in a recent Federal Circuit patent infringement case, DoggyPhone LLC v. Tomofun LLC, No. 2023-1791 (November 21, 2024) (nonprecedential).

DoggyPhone has a patent (US Patent 9,723,813), “Internet Canine Communication Device and Method.” The claim at issue (claim 7) recited a system for communicating with a pet,[1] where the system “transmits to the remote client device at least one of live audio or video of the pet, wherein the system begins transmission to the remote client device of at least one of the audio or video of the pet in response to input from the pet.”

Tomofun sells an interactive pet camera device, the “Furbo,” that allows users to see their pet, talk to their pet, and deliver treats to their pet.[2] The device operates in two modes, a standard mode and a cloud recording mode. In the standard mode, when the Furbo device detects pet activity (like barking or meowing[3]), it sends a text to the user, who can then select to begin a live audio/video interaction with the pet.[4] In the cloud recording mode, when the device detects pet activity it records video (with audio) to the cloud and sends the user a text message, which allows the user to view the recorded video.

Tomofun was granted summary judgment of non-infringement at the district court, on the basis that the Furbo system did not begin “transmission to the remote client device … in response to input from the pet,” as was required by the claim. Instead the transmission only began when the user made the selection to begin the transmission after receiving the text message.

On appeal DoggyPhone argued that the detected pet activity (the recited “input from the pet”) was part of a causal chain that led to transmission, and was indeed a necessary but-for cause of the transmission. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting a difference between beginning transmission, and beginning a process that leads to transmission. It was the user’s interaction with the text message that began transmission, not the detected pet activity.

Don’t end up in the doghouse when it comes to patent protection! What may seem to be small differences in claim language can have big consequences, greatly affecting the scope of patent protection. The patent attorneys of Renner Otto are experienced at crafting claim language to get you the patent scope to which you are entitled.

[1] The difference between “canine” and “pet” is noted, with the observation that I’ve never known a cat that would take the trouble to call, even if he or she could. This includes my once-in-a-lifetime cat Oliver, who was not shy about expressing himself.

[2] Yes, there is a Furbo device intended for use with cats. I remain skeptical. Oliver was taken in as a stray. He must have had some ragdoll in him, as I could place him on my shoulder and he would stay there, even without being held in place. Ragdolls are also known for being “demurely vocal.”

[3] Oliver was NOT demurely vocal. Though he had the ragdoll tendency to go limp (I was able to slow-motion mime throwing a football with him, using him unsupported in my hand as a stand-in for the ball), vocally he was more like a Siamese cat, capable of loud low vocalization. And he had a LOT to say.

[4] We finally concluded that Oliver was cussing at us. When we imitated what he said back at him, he looked SHOCKED that we would dare to use such language with him. I find no appeal from the idea of having a cat complain to me over the Internet. Cussing or not, Oliver liked to snuggle in my lap while I sat on the couch working, and he was great companion for many years.