Zhende Tech et al. v. Swift Paws Inc

This patent infringement case is an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, stemming from a dispute between two operating companies in the pet products market. The appellee, Swift Paws Inc., is a Florida-based company that designs and sells patented "lure coursing" equipment for pets, a product that gained significant exposure after a successful appearance on the television show Shark Tank. The company, founded by entrepreneur Meghan Wolfgram, markets its technology as a health and wellness product for pets, providing both physical and mental stimulation. The appellant, Zhende Tech, is one of several defendants originally sued by Swift Paws in a broader enforcement action against sellers of competing products. While public information on the specific structure of "Zhende Tech" is limited, Zhende Medical Co., Ltd. is a large Chinese manufacturer of medical supplies, suggesting the appellant may be a related entity or a manufacturer in a different product space.

The dispute centers on Swift Paws' patented lure chasing systems, which use a motor and pulley system to rapidly move a flag or toy (the "lure") along a user-arranged course for a pet to chase. Swift Paws has asserted two patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,609,904, which covers a lure chasing system with specific safety and operational components, and U.S. Patent No. 12,156,508, which also relates to the company's lure coursing products. The case arrived at the Federal Circuit via an interlocutory appeal filed by Zhende Tech. Swift Paws originally sued Zhende Tech and other online sellers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:26-cv-00259). In April 2026, District Judge Julie S. Sneed granted Swift Paws' motion for a preliminary injunction, a significant ruling that prohibits Zhende Tech from selling the accused infringing products while the case proceeds.

This case is notable as it represents an aggressive intellectual property enforcement strategy by a well-known American startup against alleged counterfeit or knock-off products often sold through online marketplaces. The granting of a preliminary injunction indicates the district court found Swift Paws was likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claim and was suffering irreparable harm, a relatively high bar in patent litigation. Zhende Tech's appeal of this injunction to the Federal Circuit, the specialized appellate court for patent matters, will test the strength of the underlying infringement claims and the legal basis for the injunction. The appeal was initially misfiled in the Eleventh Circuit before being transferred to the Federal Circuit. The outcome will likely impact the market for these popular pet enrichment devices and highlights the challenges faced by patented consumer product companies from overseas competitors.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

This litigation is currently in its early stages, with the most significant development being the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Swift Paws, which is now the subject of an interlocutory appeal at the Federal Circuit. There have been no parallel PTAB proceedings identified.

District Court Proceedings (M.D. Florida, Case No. 6:26-cv-00259)

• 2026-01-30: Complaint Filed
  Swift Paws, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against "Defendants Identified in Schedule A," including Zhende Tech, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the defendants sell products online that infringe upon U.S. Patent Nos. 10,609,904 and 12,156,508. Swift Paws asserted that the defendants, believed to be operating from foreign jurisdictions, use fictitious names to sell infringing products made with inferior materials at lower prices, thereby harming Swift Paws' revenue and goodwill.

• 2026-03-09: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Granted
  The court granted Swift Paws' ex parte motion for a TRO, which included an asset freeze against the defendants. The court required Swift Paws to post a $10,000 bond as security.

• 2026-03-30: Evidentiary Hearing on Preliminary Injunction
  The court held an in-person evidentiary hearing to determine whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction against Zhende Tech. Swift Paws presented eleven exhibits and testimony from its founder, Meghan Wolfgram. Zhende Tech argued against the injunction, contending its products do not infringe and that certain patent claim terms are indefinite, but it did not call any witnesses or introduce its own exhibits.

• 2026-04-03: Preliminary Injunction Granted
  District Judge Julie S. Sneed granted Swift Paws' motion to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction against Zhende Tech. The court found Swift Paws had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, citing Swift Paws' claims chart as sufficient evidence of infringement for this stage. The court was unpersuaded by Zhende Tech's non-infringement arguments and its assertion that claim terms like "drive window" and "arcuate surface" were indefinite. The order prohibits Zhende Tech from selling the accused products for the duration of the litigation.

Appellate Proceedings (Federal Circuit, Case No. 26-1709)

• 2026-04-08: Notice of Interlocutory Appeal
  Zhende Tech filed a notice of appeal in the district court, seeking to challenge the preliminary injunction order.

• 2026-04-10: Appeal Mistakenly Filed in Eleventh Circuit
  The appeal was initially and incorrectly docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as Case No. 26-11194.

• 2026-04-15: Case Transferred to Federal Circuit
  The Eleventh Circuit issued an order noting that, as a patent case, the appeal should have been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case was subsequently transferred.

• 2026-04-21: Appeal Docketed at the Federal Circuit
  The appeal was formally docketed at the Federal Circuit under the current case number, 26-1709. The case is currently open and in the initial stages of the appellate process.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• As of May 1, 2026, a search of USPTO records and litigation databases reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,609,904 or 12,156,508. Consequently, there have been no motions to stay the district court litigation pending any PTAB review.

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Swift Paws, Inc.

Based on a review of the underlying district court docket (Case No. 6:26-cv-00259, M.D. Fla.), the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Swift Paws, Inc. No notices of appearance have been filed yet in the Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 26-1709), but these attorneys are expected to represent Swift Paws in that proceeding.

Knechtel, Demeur & Samlan (Chicago, IL)

This Chicago-based intellectual property firm appears to be leading the litigation for Swift Paws. The firm's practice includes patent, trademark, and copyright law, and it has experience representing clients before federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Stephen B. Samlan: Partner. Samlan's practice includes trademark and copyright law, licensing, and litigation. He has significant experience in e-commerce intellectual property disputes, including infringement matters on platforms like Amazon, which aligns with the facts of this case.
• Alan B. Samlan: Partner. His practice covers a broad range of intellectual property matters, including patent prosecution, infringement opinions, licensing, and dispute resolution.

GrayRobinson, P.A. (Orlando & Tampa, FL)

GrayRobinson is a large Florida-based firm serving as local counsel. The firm's intellectual property group handles a wide range of litigation, including patent, trademark, and copyright infringement cases in federal courts.

• John L. Wood: Shareholder. Listed on the docket as local counsel from the firm's Orlando office. The firm has a substantial intellectual property litigation practice. Note: This is a common name, and multiple attorneys practice under it; public records for this specific attorney are less detailed regarding past patent cases.

Defendant representatives

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Zhende Tech

Based on a review of the dockets for the Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 26-1709) and the underlying district court action (Case No. 6:26-cv-00259, M.D. Fla.), the following attorney and firm have appeared on behalf of Zhende Tech.

W. R. Samuels Law PLLC (New York, NY)

This New York-based firm specializes in intellectual property and international trade litigation.

• William R. Samuels: Lead Counsel. Samuels is the attorney of record for Zhende Tech who argued against the preliminary injunction in the district court hearing. His practice focuses on patent, trademark, and copyright litigation, with experience in cases involving online sellers and e-commerce platforms. He has previously represented defendants in intellectual property enforcement actions brought by entities using a "Schedule A" model to sue multiple online sellers.

As of May 2, 2026, William R. Samuels is the only counsel of record for Zhende Tech in both the district court and the newly docketed Federal Circuit appeal. No local counsel has formally appeared in the district court proceedings. Given the early stage of the appeal, it is possible that additional counsel specializing in Federal Circuit practice may yet file an appearance.