Intellectual Property - Pet Products - Recent Developments

Hamilton Products, Inc. v. O'Neill, 492 F.Supp.2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

On summary judgment, the Court held that O'Neill's patent covering a device designed to function as the equivalent of a seatbelt restraint for pets in automobiles was invalid because the claims were indefinite under §112 of the Patent Act and were obvious in view of the prior technology under §103 of the Patent Act.  Section 112 requires that a patent applicant claim the invention "with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."  The Court held that Hamilton proved by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the patent were indefinite because the dimensions recited in the claim were "insoluably ambiguous and incapable of construction by the Court."  Furthermore, the Court held that they were indefinite because the claims did not "clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art" and did not "clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise."  Additionally, the Court held that the claimed invention was obvious in view of prior, similar restraint systems. To read the court’s decision, click here.