Swift Paws, Inc. v. Tuff Pupper LLC et al.

Swift Paws Asserts Lure Coursing Patent Against Competitors

Florida-based pet wellness company Swift Paws, Inc. has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against four companies, alleging they are selling a knockoff of its popular dog exercise device. Swift Paws, an operating company that gained national recognition after a successful appearance on the television show "Shark Tank," manufactures and sells lure coursing equipment for pets, designed to provide high-energy exercise. The defendants are Tuff Pupper LLC, a Texas-based seller of durable dog adventure gear; Pet Evolution, LLC, a franchise of pet supply and grooming stores; Phoenix Worldwide, LLC, a Tennessee-based entity; and Zhende Tech Co., Ltd., a company based in China, believed to be involved in manufacturing. All defendants appear to be operating companies involved in the production, distribution, or sale of pet products.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,609,904, which covers a "lure coursing system" for pets that uses a motorized drive unit, a series of pulleys, and a continuous loop of line to pull a flag or toy "lure" for a dog to chase. Swift Paws alleges that the defendants are infringing the '904 patent by making, using, selling, or importing a competing product called the "Fast Fetch" dog lure course. Product listings for the "Fast Fetch" device show a similar battery-powered, multi-pulley system designed for home and park use, with features like variable speeds and the ability to set up courses of several hundred feet. While the complaint has not been made widely public, the product's marketing and design appear to directly compete with Swift Paws' flagship products. No parallel validity challenges, such as an inter partes review (IPR), have been filed against the '904 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as of May 2026.

The case (3:24-cv-00838) is assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The choice of the Middle District of Tennessee as the venue is likely based on the location of defendant Phoenix Worldwide, LLC, which has a business address in Franklin, Tennessee, making the venue proper under federal statute. The litigation is notable as it represents a straightforward competitor-versus-competitor dispute in the growing and lucrative pet wellness and enrichment market, rather than an action by a non-practicing entity. The outcome could significantly impact the niche market for high-end, electronic pet exercise equipment and demonstrates Swift Paws' strategy of enforcing the intellectual property it has developed since its founding in 2012.

Legal Developments in Tennessee Patent Litigation

Based on available litigation records, the patent infringement dispute initiated in the Middle District of Tennessee involving Swift Paws, Inc. and its U.S. Patent No. 10,609,904 was short-lived, terminating just under four months after its inception. While primary court documents such as the complaint, answer, or specific motions are not available through public web searches, litigation databases provide a consistent timeline of the case's progression and its swift conclusion.

It is important to note a discrepancy between the case caption provided and the records available in public litigation databases. While the provided caption is Swift Paws, Inc. v. Tuff Pupper LLC et al., multiple independent legal data sources list the case as Phoenix Worldwide, LLC v. Swift Paws, Inc. under the same case number (3:24-cv-00838). Phoenix Worldwide, LLC was one of the named defendants in the provided caption. This reversal of parties suggests the Tennessee action may have been a declaratory judgment suit filed by Phoenix Worldwide against the patent holder, Swift Paws.

Filing and Swift Resolution (2024)

The case was initiated on 2024-07-11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and was assigned to Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,609,904, which covers a "Lure chasing system" for pets.

The litigation proceeded for less than four months before its termination. According to patent litigation database RPX Insight, the case was closed on 2024-11-08. The specific reason for the closure—such as a settlement, a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, or a court-ordered dismissal—is not detailed in the available records. Given the brief duration of the case, it is unlikely that it progressed to significant stages like claim construction (a Markman hearing), summary judgment, or trial. Typically, an early closure suggests a settlement between the parties.

Parallel Proceedings (2026)

While the Tennessee case has concluded, Swift Paws has initiated subsequent litigation over the same patent in a different venue. On 2026-01-30, Swift Paws, Inc. filed a new lawsuit, Swift Paws Inc v. Zhende Tech, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:26-cv-00259). Zhende Tech Co., Ltd. was also named as a defendant in the original Tennessee case caption.

This new case has already seen significant activity. On 2026-04-03, the Florida court granted a preliminary injunction against Zhende Tech, indicating that Swift Paws demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim for the '904 patent. Zhende Tech filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on 2026-04-08, challenging the injunction order.

PTAB Proceedings

As of the current date, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings have been filed by any of the named defendants challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,609,904. Therefore, the patent's validity has not been contested at the PTAB, and there are no parallel administrative proceedings that would have affected the Tennessee litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, based on a review of available court records and legal publications, the following counsel has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Swift Paws, Inc.

Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.

Stephen J. Stark

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
• Office Location: Nashville, Tennessee
• Note: Stark has experience in patent litigation, including cases involving mechanical and consumer products.

Edward D. Lanquist, Jr.

• Role: Of Counsel
• Firm: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
• Office Location: Nashville, Tennessee
• Note: Lanquist is a seasoned intellectual property attorney with a track record in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation, and has represented clients before federal courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

No Counsel of Record Publicly Identified for Defendants

As of May 4, 2026, a thorough review of publicly available information, including court docket aggregators and legal news outlets, has not identified the counsel of record for any of the four defendants: Tuff Pupper LLC, Pet Evolution, LLC, Phoenix Worldwide, LLC, or Zhende Tech Co., Ltd. in the patent infringement case Swift Paws, Inc. v. Tuff Pupper LLC et al., 3:24-cv-00838, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Detailed docket information, including notices of appearance which would name the attorneys, is not accessible without a direct PACER subscription for this case. No press releases, news articles, or other secondary sources have been found that name the law firms or specific attorneys representing the defendants in this matter.

It is common for defendants, particularly foreign entities like Zhende Tech Co., Ltd., to take time to retain local and lead counsel and file their appearances with the court after being served with the complaint. Filings may also be under seal.

A search for related litigation did reveal that an attorney named William Robert Brees of Bayramoglu Law Offices appeared on behalf of Zhende Tech in a separate but related patent case filed by Swift Paws in the Middle District of Florida (Swift Paws Inc v. Zhende Tech, 6:26-cv-00259). However, it is not confirmed that he or his firm is representing Zhende Tech in the Tennessee litigation.

Therefore, information regarding the legal representation for the defendants is not yet available in the public record.