DCT
1:24-cv-00723
Baby Jogger LLC v. Evenflo Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Baby Jogger, LLC (Virginia)
- Defendant: Evenflo Co, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes; Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00723, D. Del., 06/18/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s convertible baby stroller systems infringe five patents related to methods and apparatuses for converting a single-seat stroller into a double-seat stroller using removable seat attachments.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular baby strollers that can be adapted from a single-child to a dual-child configuration, offering parents flexibility as their family grows.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on the publication dates of the underlying patent applications and Plaintiff's virtual marking of its own products since January 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-04 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2020-07-16 | ’568 Patent Application Published |
| 2020-12-10 | ’682 Patent Application Published |
| 2021-12-07 | ’568 Patent Issued |
| 2022-11-22 | ’231 Patent Issued |
| 2022-11-24 | ’771 Patent Application Published |
| 2023-01-01 | Plaintiff Alleges Virtual Marking Began "since at least as early as January 2023" |
| 2023-02-14 | ’771 Patent Issued |
| 2023-03-02 | ’729 Patent Application Published |
| 2023-08-22 | ’682 Patent Issued |
| 2024-01-23 | ’729 Patent Issued |
| 2024-06-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,192,568 - Removable Seat Attachment For A Stroller
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that permanently fixed double strollers can be difficult to maneuver, while parents who sometimes only need to transport one child are still burdened with the size of a double stroller. It also identifies a problem with existing convertible strollers where detachable covers for seat attachment points can be easily lost (’568 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a stroller that can be converted from a single-seat to a multi-seat configuration using removable seat attachment adapters. The stroller frame is equipped with dedicated seat attachment housings designed to receive these adapters, creating a modular system that allows a second seat to be added in front of and typically lower than the first seat (’568 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-10; Fig. 8A).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach provides parents with the flexibility to adapt a single stroller for use with two children, potentially obviating the need to purchase a separate, larger double stroller (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7-9 (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A stroller frame comprising first and second upper tube support frames, front wheel support frames, and back wheel support frames.
- A first seat coupled along the upper tube support frames at a first vertical position.
- A first seat attachment adapter coupled to the first front wheel support frame at a second vertical position below the first.
- A second seat attachment adapter coupled to the second front wheel support frame at a third vertical position below the first.
- A second seat removably coupled to the adapters to position it at a fourth vertical position below the first, where the second and third vertical positions are at the same vertical height.
U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231 - Removable Seat Attachment For A Stroller
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of converting a single stroller to a double stroller without compromising stability or creating an unbalanced and unsafe condition (’231 Patent, col. 1:44-55, col. 7:8-16).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a stroller system with a specific frame geometry, including a handle portion, front and rear wheel support portions, and a folding mechanism. The key feature is a front seat attachment configured to support a second stroller seat "substantially over the front wheels so that a center of gravity of the stroller system is between the front wheels and the rear wheels" (’231 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-34). This arrangement creates an "inline descending configuration" for the two seats.
- Technical Importance: By specifying the placement of the second seat relative to the front wheels and the overall center of gravity, the invention aims to maintain maneuverability and stability when the stroller is converted to a two-seat configuration.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 15-17, and 19-20 (Compl. ¶79).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A frame with a handle portion, rear wheel support portion, front wheel support portion, and a folding mechanism.
- A front seat attachment configured for attachment to the front wheel support portion at a position substantially lower than a rear stroller seat support portion.
- The front seat attachment is configured to support the front seat "substantially over the front wheels so that a center of gravity of the stroller system is between the front wheels and the rear wheels."
- The rear and front wheel support portions have specific geometric relationships in both folded and unfolded configurations.
- The seat support portions create an "inline descending configuration" for the rear and front seats.
U.S. Patent No. 11,577,771 - Removable Seat Attachment For A Stroller
Technology Synopsis
This patent is directed to a stroller convertible from a single to a double seat configuration "without increasing its footprint" (Compl. ¶28). The claims focus on a frame with "only two front wheels," left and right foldable support members, and seat attachments that arrange the first and second seats in an "inline descending configuration substantially along the plane of the frame" (Compl. ¶28).
Asserted Claims
1-4 and 13-15 (Compl. ¶116).
Accused Features
The accused product's ability to convert from a single to a double seat configuration, its frame structure with two front wheels, and the resulting tiered arrangement of the two seats are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶118-128).
U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682 - Removable Seat Attachment For A Stroller
Technology Synopsis
The technology concerns a stroller with a frame, a first seat disposed closer to the handle, and specific "seat attachment housing[s]" coupled to the frame at lower vertical positions (Compl. ¶34). Seat attachment adapters connect to these housings to support a second seat, creating an "inline descending configuration" (Compl. ¶34).
Asserted Claims
1, 8-13, and 15 (Compl. ¶151).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the accused product's frame, its primary seat position, and the specific housings and adapters used to attach the second, lower seat infringe the patent (Compl. ¶153-161).
U.S. Patent No. 11,878,729 - Removable Seat Attachments for Strollers
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes a stroller system with a frame architecture defined by the relationship between its handle portion, wheel support portions, and folding mechanism (Compl. ¶40). Similar to the '231 Patent, it claims a configuration that supports the front seat "substantially over the front wheels" to maintain the center of gravity and creates an "inline descending configuration" (Compl. ¶40).
Asserted Claims
1-3 and 15-22 (Compl. ¶184).
Accused Features
The infringement allegations target the overall frame geometry, folding mechanism, and seat placement of the accused product, which allegedly match the claimed configuration (Compl. ¶186-197).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the EvenFlo Pivot Xpand Travel System and the separately sold Pivot Xpand Second Toddler Seats, which can be incorporated with the travel system (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as a "versatile Pivot Xpand Modular Travel System" designed to convert from a single-child stroller to a double-child stroller by adding a second seat (Compl. ¶64, 101). The system is marketed as being able to accommodate up to 23 different seating configurations for infants and toddlers (Compl. ¶64). The complaint includes a visual from an Evenflo product manual illustrating various forward- and parent-facing configurations for the second seat (Compl. p. 30).
- The complaint alleges that the Defendant has "saturated the market with infringing products, stealing valuable market share that rightfully belongs to Baby Jogger" (Compl. ¶1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'568 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a stroller frame comprising: a first upper tube support frame; a second upper tube support frame; | The accused product is alleged to have a stroller frame that includes first and second upper tube support frames. The complaint provides an annotated photograph identifying these components on the accused stroller (Compl. p. 13). | ¶46-47 | col. 9:1-25 |
| a first front wheel support frame rotatably adjusted...; a second front wheel support frame rotatably adjusted... | The accused product allegedly has first and second front wheel support frames that are rotatably adjusted to be parallel with the upper tube support frames when unfolded. | ¶48-49 | col. 9:26-33 |
| a first back wheel support frame rotated...; a second back wheel support frame rotated... | The accused product is alleged to have first and second back wheel support frames that rotate with respect to the upper tube support frames. | ¶50-51 | col. 9:34-40 |
| a first seat coupled along the first upper tube support frame and the second upper tube support frame at a first vertical position of the stroller frame; | The accused product is alleged to have a first seat coupled to its upper tube support frames at an upper, or first, vertical position. | ¶53 | col. 10:4-7 |
| a first seat attachment adapter coupled to the first front wheel support frame at a second vertical position...that is below the first vertical position; a second seat attachment adapter coupled to the second front wheel support frame at a third vertical position...that is below the first vertical position; | The product allegedly includes first and second seat attachment adapters on its front wheel support frames at lower vertical positions. An annotated image highlights these adapters (Compl. p. 18). | ¶54-55 | col. 10:49-54 |
| wherein a second seat is removably coupled to the first seat attachment adapter and the second seat attachment adapter to position the second seat at a fourth vertical position that is below the first vertical position and wherein the second vertical position and the third vertical position are at a same vertical height. | The second toddler seat is alleged to removably couple to the adapters, positioning it below the first seat, with the attachment points at the same vertical height. An image depicts the stroller converting from a single to double configuration (Compl. p. 19). | ¶56 | col. 10:55-62 |
'231 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame including a handle portion, a rear wheel support portion, a front wheel support portion and a folding mechanism connecting the front wheel support portion and the handle portion... | The accused product allegedly has a frame with a handle, rear and front wheel supports, and a folding mechanism connecting them. An annotated photo identifies the folding mechanism in both unfolded and folded states (Compl. p. 26). | ¶83-84 | col. 4:1-6 |
| wherein the frame includes a stroller seat support portion positioned at a first vertical position adjacent the handle portion... | The accused product is alleged to have a support portion for the rear stroller seat positioned at a first, upper vertical position near the handle. | ¶86 | col. 4:7-9 |
| a front seat attachment configured for attachment to the front wheel support portion at a second vertical position substantially lower than the first vertical position, | The accused product allegedly includes a front seat attachment point on the front wheel support portion that is vertically lower than the rear seat attachment point. | ¶88 | col. 4:12-15 |
| wherein the front seat attachment is configured to support the front stroller seat substantially over the front wheels so that a center of gravity of the stroller system is between the front wheels and the rear wheels; | The complaint alleges that the front seat attachment positions the second seat over the front wheels, keeping the center of gravity between the front and rear wheels, as depicted in an annotated image (Compl. p. 31). | ¶90 | col. 4:26-31 |
| wherein the rear wheel support portion extends diagonally from the front wheel support portion when the frame is in the unfolded configuration... | The accused product's rear wheel support is alleged to extend diagonally from the front wheel support when the stroller is unfolded. | ¶91 | col. 4:32-35 |
| wherein the stroller seat support portion positioned at the first vertical position and the front seat attachment at the second vertical position create an inline descending configuration of the rear stroller seat and the front stroller seat. | The relative vertical positioning of the rear and front seat attachments is alleged to create a tiered, "inline descending configuration." | ¶93 | col. 4:40-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of terms of degree used throughout the asserted claims, such as "substantially over the front wheels" (’231 Patent), "substantially parallel" (’568 Patent), and "inline descending configuration" (’231 Patent). The complaint relies on visual representations to meet these limitations, but the defendant may argue for a stricter, more quantitative interpretation that the accused product's geometry does not satisfy.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory is based on mapping claim terms onto photographs of the accused product. This raises the question of whether the labeled components of the accused product perform the specific functions recited in the claims. For example, for the ’568 Patent, does the structure identified as a "seat attachment adapter" (Compl. p. 18) function in the manner described in the patent's specification, or is it merely a visually analogous connector?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "seat attachment adapter" (’568 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the modularity claimed in the ’568 Patent. The definition will determine which components of the accused product can be considered the claimed "adapter." A broad definition would favor the plaintiff's visual mapping, while a narrow definition tied to specific disclosed mechanisms could favor the defendant.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not recite specific structural details for the adapter beyond its function of coupling to the frame and the second seat. The specification mentions it can be a "bayonet connector" as one example, which may suggest the term is not limited to that specific embodiment (’568 Patent, col. 10:13-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed descriptions and figures of a specific adapter mechanism, including a spring-loaded latching tab (1305) and a stop collar (1335) that engages with a seat attachment housing (’568 Patent, Figs. 13A-13C; col. 15:26-51). A party could argue that these detailed embodiments define the scope of the term.
The Term: "inline descending configuration" (’231 Patent, Claim 1; ’771 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase describes the crucial spatial relationship between the two seats, which underpins the patents' claims of improved stability and accessibility. Infringement depends on whether the accused product's tiered seat arrangement falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’568 Patent, incorporated by reference, explains that the difference in vertical positioning "provides improved access to the first stroller seat 86 from the front of the stroller" (’568 Patent, col. 10:63-65). This suggests the term could be construed functionally to mean any tiered arrangement that achieves this result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patents consistently depict a specific tiered arrangement where the second seat is positioned forward of and significantly below the first seat (e.g., ’568 Patent, Fig. 8A). A party may argue the term is limited to this specific visual and geometric relationship.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant’s marketing materials, product literature, and user manuals, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to assemble and use the stroller and second seat in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶62-64, 99-101). The contributory infringement claims allege that the Pivot Xpand Second Toddler Seats are material components of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶72, 109).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The complaint asserts that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement since "at least the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶58, 95). It further alleges pre-suit knowledge based on the publication dates of the patent applications and Plaintiff’s alleged virtual marking of its own products since at least January 2023 (Compl. ¶66, 103).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can relational terms of degree, such as "substantially over the front wheels" and "inline descending configuration," be construed to cover the specific geometry and seat placement of the accused Evenflo Pivot Xpand system? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are given a broad, functional meaning or are limited to the precise arrangements depicted in the patent figures.
- A second key question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused product's mechanism for attaching the second seat meet the limitations of a "seat attachment housing" and "seat attachment adapter" as claimed in patents like the ’568 and ’682? This may become a central claim construction dispute focused on whether the terms are limited to the specific latching embodiments disclosed in the specification.
- A central evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff's infringement case, which currently relies on annotated product photographs, can be substantiated with sufficient technical evidence to prove that the accused components function in the manner required by the claims, particularly in the face of likely non-infringement arguments from the defendant challenging these visual equivalencies.