The Halo Collar lawsuit history centers on two cases brought by competitors against Protect Animals with Satellites LLC, the maker of the GPS dog fence collar: a 2020 patent infringement suit from OnPoint Systems, which makes the SpotOn GPS Fence, and a 2023 false advertising suit from Radio Systems Corporation, the parent of Invisible Fence. Both ended in confidential settlements, in 2024 and 2025 respectively, and together cost Halo Collar roughly $10 million in legal fees.1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
The OnPoint Systems Patent Case
OnPoint Systems LLC, based in Manchester, New Hampshire, filed suit in 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, before Judge Amos L. Mazzant.2Midpage. OnPoint Systems LLC v. Protect Animals With Satellites LLC, 4:20-cv-00657-ALM OnPoint alleged that Halo Collar’s GPS dog fence infringed patents covering the SpotOn system, which uses satellite positioning to draw virtual boundaries and delivers warning tones, vibration, and optional shocks as a dog approaches the perimeter.1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
The case started with two patents. After reviewing Halo Collar’s source code, OnPoint added two more, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,922,522 and 9,924,314, through an amended complaint that Judge Mazzant granted in July 2021.2Midpage. OnPoint Systems LLC v. Protect Animals With Satellites LLC, 4:20-cv-00657-ALM Over four years of litigation, three of the four patents were invalidated. With one patent left and trial approaching, the parties reached a confidential settlement in 2024. Each side paid its own costs. Halo Collar CEO Ken Ehrman put the company’s defense bill at roughly $8 million.1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
The Radio Systems False Advertising Case
Radio Systems Corporation, headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, sued in November 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.3GovInfo. Radio Systems Corporation v. Protect Animals With Satellites LLC et al, 3:23-cv-00404 The complaint alleged unfair competition and false advertising, focusing on Halo Collar’s claim that its product was “safer and more accurate than Invisible Fence.”1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
Radio Systems objected in particular to Halo Collar’s Google ads bidding on the search term “invisible fence,” with copy such as “Ditch the wires. Sets up instantly. Less money. Doesn’t shock your dog.”1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney The complaint pointed to independent field testing and internal tests that, Radio Systems said, showed the Halo Collar 3 was the “least accurate of the systems tested,” contradicting Halo’s claim of being the “most accurate GPS-based system on the market.”4Yahoo Finance. Pet Product Company Files Suit Against Halo Collar
The parties settled confidentially in 2025. As part of the resolution, Ehrman agreed to revise certain marketing materials. Each side again absorbed its own legal expenses, which Ehrman estimated at roughly $2 million for Halo Collar.1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
How Both Cases Settled
Ehrman, who is not a lawyer, negotiated both settlements himself. By his account in Inc. magazine, he set up face-to-face meetings with the CEOs of OnPoint Systems and Radio Systems and kept lawyers out of the room, reasoning that direct conversation between decision-makers could move faster than adversarial litigation. He described the combined $10 million in legal fees as money that would have been better spent on product development. All three companies remain active in the GPS pet containment market.1Inc. How Halo Collars Co-Founder and CEO Ended Two Costly Lawsuits Without an Attorney
Consumer Complaints Are a Separate Matter
The two lawsuits were brought by competitors, not consumers, and there is no class action against Halo Collar in the file. Consumer dissatisfaction shows up instead through the Better Business Bureau, where Halo Collar’s profile records 195 complaints over three years, 38 of them closed in the most recent twelve months. Service and repair issues account for 119 complaints and product issues for 47. Common themes include collars that stop charging or develop melted charging ports, GPS boundary alerts that fire at the wrong times, and replacement units arriving with the same defects. Customers have also flagged that support runs through the Halo App rather than a phone line. Of the 195 complaints, 141 were marked “Answered,” meaning the company responded but the customer did not confirm satisfaction, and 54 were marked “Resolved.”5BBB. Halo Collar BBB Complaints