DCT

3:19-cv-00328

Líllébaby LLC v. Stokke LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:19-cv-00328, D. Conn., 03/06/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Connecticut because Defendant Stokke LLC resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Stokke MyCarrier" line of child carriers infringes two patents related to carriers with adaptive leg supports that allow for multiple ergonomic carrying positions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns soft-structured child carriers designed to be adjustable to accommodate a child's growth and offer different carrying modes, such as a wide "sitting" position versus a narrow "hanging" position.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the accused products are also the subject of a complaint filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking an investigation into violations of Section 337 for infringement of the same asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-28 Priority Date for ’116 Patent and ’732 Patent
2012-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,172,116 Issued
2013-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,424,732 Issued
2017-10-01 Date noted on Accused Product packaging ("B/10.2017")
2019-03-06 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,172,116 - "Child Carrier Having Adaptive Leg Supports" (Issued May 8, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes existing infant carriers as being designed for limited carrying modes (e.g., front or back only) and for a limited age, weight, and size of child, requiring parents to purchase multiple carriers as a child grows (Compl. ¶12; ’116 Patent, col. 1:5-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single child carrier that can be reconfigured to support a child in different ergonomic positions. This is achieved through a seat support part that is adjustable. In a first "sitting" configuration, the child's thighs are supported approximately perpendicular to their torso. In a second "hanging" configuration, the child's legs hang downward. This adaptability is enabled by "upper-leg-support parts" which can be detachably coupled to a hip belt to change the width and support of the seat (’116 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-col. 4:22).
  • Technical Importance: This reconfigurable design provides for a longer useful lifespan for the carrier, as it can be adjusted for a child's changing size and for different carrying situations (e.g., front-facing, back-carrying) that may be more comfortable for the parent or child (’116 Patent, col. 9:40-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • a torso support part;
    • left and right shoulder straps;
    • a seat support part coupled to the torso support part, which comprises a left upper-leg-support part and a right upper-leg-support part;
    • these upper-leg-support parts are "configurable to optionally support at least part of the... thigh of the child"; and
    • a hip belt coupled to the seat support part.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,424,732 - "Child Carrier Having Adaptive Leg Supports" (Issued April 23, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’116 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of conventional child carriers offering limited carrying modes and being quickly outgrown by a developing child (’732 Patent, col. 1:17-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a carrier with a torso support, a seat support, and a hip belt. The seat support includes left and right "upper-leg-support parts" that can be "optionally" coupled to the hip belt. When coupled, they provide a wide, supportive seat for the child. When decoupled, the seat is narrower, allowing the child's legs to hang in a different position, thus adapting to the child's size or the desired carrying style (’732 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-14).
  • Technical Importance: The invention's value lies in its versatility, allowing a single product to provide multiple ergonomic carrying options suitable for different developmental stages of a child, from infant to toddler, as illustrated by the plaintiff's own product marketing (Compl. p. 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶39).
  • The essential elements of claim 10 include:
    • a torso support part;
    • a seat support part with a left upper-leg-support part and a right upper-leg-support part;
    • a hip belt;
    • the left upper-leg-support part is configured for "optionally coupling to the left side of the hip belt"; and
    • the right upper-leg-support part is configured for "optionally coupling to the right side of the hip belt."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Stokke MyCarrier" products as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶25). A photograph of the packaging for the "Stokke® MyCarrier™ Front and Back Carrier US" is included in the complaint (Compl. p. 7).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants import, offer for sale, and sell the Accused Products in the United States through online and brick-and-mortar retail channels (Compl. ¶¶26-28). The complaint includes a marketing image from its own website showing a carrier with "6in1" functionality, illustrating the various carrying positions that form the technical context of the dispute (Compl. p. 4). The packaging of the accused product identifies it as a "Front and Back Carrier," suggesting it is designed for multiple carrying positions (Compl. p. 7). The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that would detail the specific functionality alleged to infringe.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibit 3 (for the ’116 Patent) and Exhibit 4 (for the ’732 Patent) but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶¶33, 40). The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have directly infringed, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’116 Patent and at least claim 10 of the ’732 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the Accused Products in the United States (Compl. ¶¶32, 39). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the Stokke MyCarrier products possess a reconfigurable seat structure that reads on the patented claims for adaptive leg supports.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the interpretation of key claim terms. A central question will be whether the term "upper-leg-support part," as used in the patents, can be construed to read on the specific components of the accused Stokke MyCarrier that adjust its seat width.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the mechanism in the Accused Products for adjusting the seat between different carrying positions functions in the same way as the "optional coupling" to a hip belt described and claimed in the patents. The court will need to examine if there is a direct correspondence or an equivalence in structure and function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "upper-leg-support part" (’116 Patent, cl. 1; ’732 Patent, cl. 10)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary structural element responsible for the carrier's adaptability. The existence and nature of this part in the accused product will be a determinative issue for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the seat support part (120) as comprising a left and right upper-leg-support part (145-L, 145-R) (’116 Patent, col. 2:51-57). A plaintiff might argue this means any portion of the seat base that can be reconfigured to provide wider thigh support.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description depict the "upper-leg-support parts" as distinct fabric extensions or panels that can be coupled to the hip belt via sleeves, snaps, or hook-and-loop fasteners, or folded away for storage (’116 Patent, Fig. 3E; col. 5:16-30, col. 5:57-col. 6:15). A defendant could argue this limits the term to a more specific structure than simply an adjustable seat width.

  • The Term: "configurable to optionally support" (’116 Patent, cl. 1) / "configured for optionally coupling" (’732 Patent, cl. 10)

    • Context and Importance: This functional language is critical as it describes how the "upper-leg-support part" achieves the invention's adaptability. The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product's adjustment mechanism meets this "optional" requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents explain that the configurations can be changed depending on the child's size or the user's preference for a "sitting" versus a "hanging" position (’116 Patent, col. 8:5-22). This could support an interpretation covering any carrier with at least two distinct, user-selectable seat width settings.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific coupling mechanisms, such as passing the hip belt through a sleeve (350), or using snaps (370) or hook-and-loop fasteners (360) to connect the support part to the hip belt (’116 Patent, Figs. 3A-3D). Parties may argue this language requires a mechanism that a user can consciously and discretely engage or disengage, rather than a continuously adjustable or integrated system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement). The infringement allegations are limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶32, 39).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the asserted patents "since at least the date of the filing of this Action," and that their ongoing infringement is "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶¶36-37, 43-44). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define the term "upper-leg-support part"? Will the definition be limited to the discrete, foldable panel structures shown in the patent embodiments, or can it encompass any integrated mechanism within a child carrier's seat that allows for adjustment of thigh support?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical infringement: assuming the court’s construction, does the adjustment mechanism of the Stokke MyCarrier function by "optionally coupling" to the hip belt to create distinct "sitting" and "hanging" configurations as claimed in the patents, or is there a fundamental difference in its structure, function, and result?