Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 1:24-cv-01236, is active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs are Frederick Perkins and Woodstream Corporation, who are co-owners of the patent at issue. Woodstream Corporation is an operating company known for its wild bird feeding and pest control products, and Frederick Perkins is likely the inventor of the asserted patent. The defendant is Bird Buddy, Inc., an operating company that markets "smart" bird feeders.

The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242, titled "Self-contained bird feeder with camera." This patent describes a bird feeder designed to provide detailed images over a wireless network, featuring a built-in camera, computer, and internet connection, where the camera is internally mounted and aligned with a feed port to observe feeding birds. Woodstream and Perkins allege that Bird Buddy's "Smart Bird Feeder" products infringe upon this patent.

The case is being heard by Judge John Campbell Barker in the District of Delaware. Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely because a significant number of U.S. corporations are incorporated there, making it a proper venue under the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision. The district is known for its experienced judiciary and a well-developed body of patent-specific precedent, which can lead to efficient case management. A notable procedural aspect so far is the court's denial of Bird Buddy's motion to dismiss, which attempted to resolve infringement based on claim construction at an early stage. This denial underscores the court's preference for addressing complex claim interpretation arguments later in the litigation, highlighting the nuanced battles often fought over claim language like "built-in" versus "modular" components. There is no information from the provided sources about any associated Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) for this patent.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Woodstream Corporation et al. v. Bird Buddy, Inc.

Case Number: 1:24-cv-01236
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242
Parties: Woodstream Corporation and Frederick Perkins (Plaintiffs) v. Bird Buddy, Inc. (Defendant)
Status: Active litigation

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

The case, filed in the District of Delaware, concerns alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242, which is directed to a "self-contained bird feeder with a camera" for streaming video.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • The plaintiffs, Frederick Perkins, the owner of the '242 patent, and Woodstream Corporation, initiated the lawsuit against Bird Buddy, Inc.. The initial complaint and an amended complaint were filed; however, the exact dates of these filings are not immediately available in the provided snippets.
  • Bird Buddy, Inc. subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 19).

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance — Motion to Dismiss:

  • On August 22, 2025, the court denied Bird Buddy's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • Bird Buddy had argued that the amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege that its electronic bird feeder met the necessary limitations of the asserted patents. Specifically, Bird Buddy contended that its camera was not "built in" as required by the patent claims and that the prosecution history distinguished cameras that were simply "in" the feeder.
  • The court, presided over by Judge John Campbell Barker, determined that the plaintiffs' factual allegations were sufficient under Twombly and Iqbal to state a plausible claim for relief at that stage of the litigation.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • During the motion to dismiss, claim construction arguments regarding terms like "built in camera" and "internally mounted" were raised by Bird Buddy. The court declined to engage in claim construction at the motion to dismiss stage, stating that such questions were appropriate for a future Markman hearing.
  • As of May 29, 2026, there is no information in the provided snippets regarding a Markman hearing having taken place or its outcome.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance are detailed in the provided information.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case is still active, and no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have been reported.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains active following the denial of the motion to dismiss. No final disposition through settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been reached.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242 did not yield any results in the provided search outputs.## Patent Infringement Litigation: Woodstream Corporation et al. v. Bird Buddy, Inc.

Case Number: 1:24-cv-01236
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242
Parties: Woodstream Corporation and Frederick Perkins (Plaintiffs) v. Bird Buddy, Inc. (Defendant)
Status: Active litigation

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

This active patent infringement case in the District of Delaware involves U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242, titled a "self-contained bird feeder with a camera" for streaming video. The plaintiffs, Frederick Perkins (the patent owner) and Woodstream Corporation, allege infringement by Bird Buddy, Inc..

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • While the exact filing dates of the initial complaint and an amended complaint are not provided, it is clear that an amended complaint was filed by Woodstream Corporation et al..
  • In response, Bird Buddy, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, designated as Docket Entry 19.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance — Motion to Dismiss:

  • On August 22, 2025, the District Court for the District of Delaware, through an Opinion and Order, denied Bird Buddy's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • Bird Buddy had argued that the plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to adequately allege that the defendant's electronic bird feeder infringed the asserted patent claims, specifically contending that its camera was not "built in" as required by the patent and that the prosecution history distinguished cameras merely "in" the feeder.
  • The court ruled that the plaintiffs' factual allegations were sufficient under the pleading standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly to establish a plausible claim of literal infringement at that early stage of the litigation. The court noted that claim construction arguments were not appropriate for a motion to dismiss.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Arguments regarding the construction of terms such as "built in camera" and "internally mounted" were raised by Bird Buddy during the motion to dismiss.
  • The court explicitly declined to address these claim construction arguments at the motion to dismiss stage, deferring them to a future Markman hearing. As of May 29, 2026, there is no publicly available information in the provided sources indicating that a Markman hearing has occurred or the outcome of any such hearing.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific significant discovery milestones are mentioned in the provided information.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case is still in the pre-trial phase following the denial of the motion to dismiss. There have been no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions reported.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal — Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • The litigation remains active in the District of Delaware. There has been no final disposition by way of settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:

  • A search for any parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to U.S. Patent No. 11,627,242 did not yield any results from the provided search outputs. Therefore, there is no information about any PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings affecting this litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case 1:24-cv-01236 in the Delaware District Court:

Plaintiff: Woodstream Corporation

Attorney:

• Name: Stephanie S. Riley
• Role: Counsel for Plaintiff
• Firm: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
• Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results for this case, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP has multiple offices across the US, including in Delaware.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Stephanie S. Riley represented Woodstream Corp. in this patent infringement case concerning U.S. Patent No. 11627242 (referred to as the '242 patent in the source) against Bird Buddy, Inc.. The case involved a motion to dismiss where the court declined to engage in claim construction at that stage.

The defendant, Bird Buddy, Inc., is represented by several attorneys from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

Here is the counsel of record for the defendant:

Defendant: Bird Buddy, Inc.

Attorneys:

• Name: Jeremy A. Tigan

• Role: Counsel for Defendant

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is a prominent Delaware-based firm.

• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jeremy A. Tigan is listed as counsel for Bird Buddy, Inc. in this patent infringement case (1:24-cv-01236) and has been active in filings, including a notice of service for Bird Buddy's preliminary list of claim terms and proposed constructions.

• Name: Andrea B. Reed

• Role: Counsel for Defendant

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware.

• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Andrea B. Reed is listed as counsel representing Bird Buddy, Inc. in this case.

• Name: Kevin M. Eckert

• Role: Counsel for Defendant

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware.

• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Kevin M. Eckert is listed as counsel representing Bird Buddy, Inc. in this case.

• Name: Craig R. Smith

• Role: Counsel for Defendant

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware.

• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Craig R. Smith is listed as counsel representing Bird Buddy, Inc. in this case.