Doggyphone v. TOMOFUN: Federal Circuit Affirms in Canine Communication Patent Dispute
Doggyphone, LLC asserted US9723813B2 — covering an internet-connected canine communication device and method — against TOMOFUN LLC, maker of the Furbo dog camera. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in Case 23-1791, closing a 576-day appellate proceeding with no reversal for TOMOFUN.
Federal Circuit closes canine-tech patent appeal with affirmance for Doggyphone
Doggyphone, LLC filed appeal Case 23-1791 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 25, 2023, asserting infringement of US9723813B2 — a patent covering an internet-connected device and method for two-way communication with dogs — against TOMOFUN LLC. TOMOFUN is the company behind the Furbo interactive dog camera, a product commercially aligned with the technology described in the asserted patent. The case was litigated by Lowe Graham & Jones PLLC for Doggyphone and Greenberg Traurig LLP for TOMOFUN.
The Federal Circuit issued its order on November 21, 2024, affirming the decision below. An affirmance at the Federal Circuit means the appellate panel found no reversible legal error in the lower tribunal’s ruling, leaving that decision intact. For Doggyphone, the affirmance consolidates whatever outcome was secured at the lower level. For TOMOFUN, the appellate avenue is exhausted at this court, with only a petition to the Supreme Court remaining as a theoretical further option.
The 576-day duration of this appeal is consistent with — though slightly longer than — typical Federal Circuit timelines, suggesting standard briefing and deliberation cycles with no extraordinary procedural interruptions. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed’ despite the affirmance order language, which may reflect a procedural classification in the docketing system. The precise scope of the lower court’s finding that was affirmed — including any claim construction rulings or invalidity determinations — is not fully detailed in the publicly available appellate record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 576 days
576 days — above the median Federal Circuit appeal timeline of roughly 18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit level
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit signals that the appellate panel reviewed the lower court’s decision and found no reversible legal error — whether on claim construction, validity, or infringement analysis. The lower court’s ruling is left entirely intact. The Federal Circuit applies de novo review to legal questions such as claim construction and reviews factual findings for clear error, meaning TOMOFUN faced a demanding standard to obtain reversal.
No reversible error foundDoggyphone’s patent survives appellate challenge
The affirmance is a favourable result for Doggyphone. US9723813B2 emerges from the Federal Circuit without being invalidated or narrowed by appellate intervention. Any infringement finding or injunctive relief granted at the lower level remains operative. This strengthens Doggyphone’s ability to enforce the patent against TOMOFUN and may enhance its negotiating position in any licensing discussions with other parties in the connected pet-device market.
Patent enforceability maintainedTOMOFUN’s appellate options exhausted at this level
For TOMOFUN, the affirmance closes the Federal Circuit avenue. The practical options remaining are limited: a petition for rehearing en banc before the full Federal Circuit (rarely granted) or a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (granted in fewer than 2% of cases). Any adverse lower-court ruling — including damages or injunctive relief — now carries greater finality. TOMOFUN may need to reassess product design or pursue a licensing resolution with Doggyphone.
Further appeal paths narrow sharplyAffirmed patent raises the bar for connected pet-device competitors
US9723813B2 now carries the weight of Federal Circuit affirmance, which typically makes the patent harder to challenge in future IPR proceedings and raises the risk profile for competitors developing internet-connected animal communication products. Companies in the smart pet-technology sector — including two-way audio/video pet devices — should treat this outcome as a signal to conduct Freedom-to-Operate analysis against Doggyphone’s portfolio before launching or updating products in this space.
Higher challenge bar post-affirmanceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Doggyphone, LLC | Company | Pet technology IP licensor — holder of US9723813B2 covering internet canine communication devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TOMOFUN LLC | Company | TOMOFUN LLC — developer and marketer of the Furbo interactive dog camera platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Allen Lowe, Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for Doggyphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lowe Graham & Jones PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Doggyphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erik Bokar | Attorney | Counsel for TOMOFUN LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James J. Lukas , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for TOMOFUN LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Giroux | Attorney | Counsel for TOMOFUN LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing TOMOFUN LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is a merits affirmance, meaning the panel reviewed the lower court’s disposition of the infringement action and found no reversible legal error sufficient to disturb it. The terse formulation is characteristic of summary affirmances under Federal Circuit Rule 36, which are issued without a written opinion when the panel unanimously concludes that the lower court’s decision was correct and a full opinion would add no precedential value. For Doggyphone, this is a complete appellate win; for TOMOFUN, the absence of a written opinion limits the ability to identify grounds for further challenge.
US9723813B2 — Internet Canine Communication Device and Method
US9723813B2 was filed under application number US13/765546 and protects an internet canine communication device and method — broadly covering technology that enables remote, internet-mediated two-way interaction between a dog owner and their pet. The patent sits at the intersection of IoT connectivity, animal behaviour interface design, and networked consumer electronics. Its grant date and application history place it in the early-to-mid 2010s wave of IoT patent filings, predating the mainstream commercial launch of devices such as the Furbo.
The strategic significance of US9723813B2 lies in its early-mover position in a now commercially valuable product category. The connected pet-device market — encompassing interactive cameras, treat dispensers, and two-way audio/video platforms — has grown substantially since the patent’s priority date. A Federal Circuit affirmance reinforces the patent’s enforceability and elevates its commercial value as a licensing asset. Competitors and new entrants should assess whether their product architectures — particularly those involving app-triggered pet interactions over IP networks — fall within the claim scope.
Should your team run an FTO against US9723813B2?
Any R&D or product team developing internet-connected devices for animal interaction — including pet cameras, remote treat dispensers, two-way audio systems, or app-controlled pet engagement platforms — should treat US9723813B2 as a live enforcement risk. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in November 2024 means the patent cannot be dismissed as likely to be overturned on appeal. If your product enables a pet owner to remotely see, hear, speak to, or interact with their dog via an internet-connected device, a formal FTO review is warranted before commercialisation or product update.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the independent and dependent claims of US9723813B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support design-arounds, and flag related Doggyphone portfolio filings that could present additional exposure. Eureka’s claim-chart automation reduces FTO cycle times significantly compared to manual analysis, enabling IP and product teams to make launch decisions with greater legal certainty and documented diligence records.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9723813B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit cases in internet-connected device patent litigation
Browse Federal Circuit infringement appeals involving IoT and internet-connected consumer device patents — the same technology category and court level as Doggyphone v. TOMOFUN.
What this case signals for the connected pet-technology IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance in internet canine communication IP sharpens enforcement risk for the fast-growing smart pet-device market.
FTO is now essential for any internet-connected pet communication device
With US9723813B2 surviving Federal Circuit review, any company developing two-way remote interaction devices for pets faces elevated infringement risk. The affirmance signals that the claim scope withstood appellate scrutiny. Product teams should commission FTO analysis before product launch or feature updates that touch remote audio, video, or treat-dispensing interactions with animals.
Federal Circuit affirmance hardens Doggyphone’s licensing leverage
Patent holders who secure Federal Circuit affirmances typically achieve stronger licensing outcomes because potential licensees can no longer rely on a pending appeal to delay negotiations. Doggyphone’s position in any licensing discussions with other smart pet-device makers is materially stronger post-November 2024. In-house counsel at connected pet-device companies should proactively assess exposure rather than waiting for a demand letter.
Doggyphone v TOMOFUN — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in Case 23-1791 on November 21, 2024. The order — ‘ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — confirms no reversible error was found in the lower tribunal’s ruling on the infringement action concerning US9723813B2. The case closed after 576 days on appeal.
US9723813B2, filed under application US13/765546, protects an internet canine communication device and method. The patent covers technology enabling remote, internet-mediated two-way interaction between a dog owner and their pet — directly relevant to interactive pet camera products such as TOMOFUN’s Furbo. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision concerning this patent in November 2024.
A Rule 36 affirmance issues without a written opinion, signalling unanimous agreement that the lower decision was correct and that no precedential opinion is needed. For TOMOFUN, practical further options are limited to a petition for rehearing en banc or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — both of which are granted at very low rates. The absence of a written opinion also limits TOMOFUN’s ability to identify specific legal errors to argue on further review.
The affirmance strengthens US9723813B2 as an enforcement asset and raises the risk profile for competitors in the connected pet-device market. Companies developing internet-connected two-way animal interaction products face a patent that has now survived appellate scrutiny, making invalidity arguments harder to sustain. Industry participants — particularly those with interactive pet camera or remote treat-dispensing products — should conduct FTO analysis against this patent.
The public record reflects a summary order using the standard affirmance language without a substantive written opinion, consistent with a Federal Circuit Rule 36 disposition. This means the Federal Circuit did not publish a reasoned analysis of claim construction, infringement, or validity — limiting the precedential value of the ruling but fully resolving the appeal in Doggyphone’s favour.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.