Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Mr. Peanut’s Pet Products v. Apollo Investment | Patent Lawsuit 0:26-cv-60892

Mr. Peanut’s Pet Products, LLC v. Apollo Investment Holding Co. LLC

0:26-cv-60892 S.D. Fla. Closed US9163370B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 17 Apr 2026, with US9163370B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9163370B2
Application no.
US14/090475
Case no.
0:26-cv-60892
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Fla.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Florida
Chief judge
David S. Leibowitz
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
30 Mar 2026 – 17 Apr 2026
Duration
18 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Pet products pet leashes and restraints · clothing · pet toys · pet “pooper scoopers”
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 0:26-cv-60892, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9163370B2 Active App. US14/090475

Foldable pickup device

A foldable pet feces pickup device includes a handle, upper operating stick, and a lower operating stick. The device further includes a linkage accessory connecting the upper operating stick to the lower operating stick. The linkage accessory has an elongated shape with round convex parts. The device further includes a pair of picking-up members for picking up an object; and a shaft connecting the lower operation stick and the pair of picking-up members. If the upper operating stick is moved toward the handle, the pair of picking-up members moves away from each other to open. If the upper operating stick is moved away from the handle, the pair of picking-up members moves toward each other to close. The device is foldable at the linkage portion.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
20 Oct 2015
Est. expiry
26 Nov 2033
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Inventors
QIU, BIN
Classification
A01K29/00E01H1/12
Prosecution counsel
Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
Examiner
VU, STEPHEN
US9163370B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 10]. Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. All pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot.”

Case 0:26-cv-60892 · S.D. Fla. · closed 17 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 0:26-cv-60892?

0:26-cv-60892 is a patent infringement action brought by Mr. Peanut’s Pet Products, LLC against Apollo Investment Holding Co. LLC, filed on 30 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 17 April 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 0:26-cv-60892?

US9163370B2 (“Foldable pickup device”), assigned to APOLLO INVESTMENT HOLDING CO., LLC, currently active. The record also lists Pet products pet leashes and restraints, clothing, pet toys and pet “pooper scoopers”.

How was case 0:26-cv-60892 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 10]. Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. All pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 0:26-cv-60892 take?

18 calendar days, from filing on 30 Mar 2026 to closure on 17 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 0:26-cv-60892?

Chief Judge David S. Leibowitz presided. Lawrence Allen Caplan is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Mr. Peanut’s Pet Products.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 0:26-cv-60892 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 0:26-cv-60892 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.