DCT
4:26-cv-00022
Ergo Baby Carrier Inc v. Mabe LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (Hawaii / California)
- Defendant: Mabē, LLC (Idaho)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP; Lathrop GPM LLP
- Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00022, D. Idaho, 01/14/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Idaho because Defendant Mabē, LLC resides in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Monarch Buckle Carrier infringes two patents related to adjustable child carriers designed to ergonomically support children as they grow.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to soft-structured child carriers, a consumer product category where ergonomic adjustability to support children of different sizes is a key feature for safety and comfort.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provides notice of its patent rights by marking its own commercial products with the asserted patent numbers via its website.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’275 and ’470 Patents |
| 2019-10-01 | U.S. Patent No. 10,426,275 Issued |
| 2024-06-25 | U.S. Patent No. 12,016,470 Issued |
| 2026-01-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,426,275 - *"Adjustable Child Carrier"*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of using a single child carrier for a growing child, noting that carriers designed for infants may not properly support toddlers, and vice-versa (Compl. ¶10; ’275 Patent, col. 1:51-61). The use of separate "infant inserts" is described as a cumbersome, non-intuitive, and easily lost solution to this problem (’275 Patent, col. 2:8-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable child carrier featuring an integrated "adjustable bucket seat" that can be reconfigured to ergonomically support children of various sizes without a separate insert (’275 Patent, Abstract). The key mechanism involves "base width adjusters" that couple the seat's thigh supports to the wearer's waist belt at multiple locations, which simultaneously adjusts both the width and depth of the bucket seat to maintain an ergonomic "spread squat position" for the child (’275 Patent, col. 2:25-44, col. 3:1-5).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a single soft-structured carrier to adapt to the changing anatomy of a child from infancy through toddlerhood, aiming to provide proper ergonomic support at each developmental stage (Compl. ¶10; ’275 Patent, col. 3:57-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A child carrier comprising a waist belt and a main body.
- The main body includes a torso support portion and an adjustable bucket seat.
- The adjustable bucket seat is configurable into a plurality of configurations, each having a different bucket seat depth and width.
- The bucket seat comprises a seat center portion, thigh supports on either side, and a "base width adjuster" coupled to each thigh support.
- The base width adjusters are configured for "selective coupling to the waist belt at multiple locations" to adjust the width of the main body at the waist belt.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,016,470 - *"Adjustable Child Carrier"*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’275 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of creating a single, adaptable carrier for a growing child (’470 Patent, col. 1:51-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable child carrier that uses "at least one base adjuster" to modify the carrier's fit (’470 Patent, Abstract). This adjuster selectively attaches to the waist belt at different positions to "adjust a length of the body," which is defined as the dimension from the bottom of the bucket seat to the top of the body, thereby accommodating children of various sizes (’470 Patent, col. 5:56-65).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides a mechanism for adjusting the vertical dimension of the carrier's body, complementing other adjustments to ensure an appropriate fit as a child grows taller (Compl. ¶14; ’470 Patent, col. 6:25-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An adjustable child carrier comprising a body, two adjustable shoulder straps, and a waist belt.
- "at least one base adjuster" is coupled to the body.
- The base adjuster is configured to "selectively attach to the waist belt at a first position... and a second position" to "adjust a length of the body."
- The "length of the body" is defined as the dimension "from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the features and functionality of the Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier are described on Defendant's website and in its Instruction Manual (Compl. ¶21). An image provided in the complaint depicts the accused product as a soft-structured carrier with shoulder straps and a waist belt (Compl. ¶20). The complaint asserts that the Monarch Buckle Carrier directly competes with Plaintiff's own adjustable carrier products, such as the Omni Breeze, Omni Dream, and Omni Deluxe (Compl. ¶¶19, 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations of infringement and the claim language provided in the body of the complaint.
’275 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A child carrier comprising: a waist belt adapted for securing about a wearer's hips; | The complaint alleges the Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier is a child carrier that includes a waist belt. | ¶23 | col. 2:29-31 |
| a main body coupled to the waist belt...comprising: a torso support portion...and an adjustable bucket seat... | The complaint alleges the accused product has a main body with a torso support and an adjustable bucket seat. | ¶23 | col. 2:31-44 |
| the adjustable bucket seat comprising: a seat center portion...thigh supports disposed on either side... | The complaint alleges the accused product's bucket seat includes a seat center portion and thigh supports. | ¶23 | col. 2:61-65 |
| a base width adjuster coupled to each thigh support, wherein the base width adjusters are configured for selective coupling to the waist belt at multiple locations to adjust a width of the main body at the waist belt. | The complaint alleges the accused product includes base width adjusters that selectively couple to the waist belt at multiple locations to adjust the carrier's width. | ¶23 | col. 3:1-5 |
’470 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An adjustable child carrier...comprising: a body configured to support a child...a first adjustable shoulder strap...a second adjustable shoulder strap...a waist belt... | The complaint alleges the Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier is an adjustable child carrier with a body, shoulder straps, and a waist belt. | ¶24 | col. 5:50-55 |
| at least one base adjuster coupled to the body, wherein the at least one base adjuster is configured to selectively attach to the waist belt at a first position located on the waist belt and a second position located on the waist belt... | The complaint alleges the accused product includes at least one base adjuster that can be attached to the waist belt at different positions. | ¶24 | col. 5:56-61 |
| to thereby adjust a length of the body to accommodate various sizes of the child as the child ages, wherein the length of the body is defined from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body. | The complaint alleges this adjustability serves to change the length of the carrier body, as defined in the claim, to fit children of different sizes. | ¶24 | col. 5:61-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’275 Patent will be whether the accused product's adjustment mechanism constitutes a "base width adjuster" that couples "to the waist belt at multiple locations" to adjust width. For the ’470 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused product's mechanism adjusts the specifically defined "length of the body" by attaching to the waist belt at different positions.
- Technical Questions: Since the complaint's detailed infringement evidence relies on an Instruction Manual and claim chart exhibits not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶22-24), a primary issue will be what evidence those documents contain to show that the Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier's components function in the specific manner required by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "base width adjuster ... configured for selective coupling to the waist belt at multiple locations" (’275 Patent, Claim 1).
- Context and Importance: This term captures the core mechanism for adjusting the carrier’s seat width and depth. The infringement analysis for the ’275 Patent will likely hinge on whether the accused product’s adjustment feature meets the definition of a "base width adjuster" and whether it couples at "multiple locations."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the coupling may occur across a "continuous range of positions," not just at discrete points, which may support a broader construction (’275 Patent, col. 10:33-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 3A-3C and the corresponding description depict three distinct attachment positions (154, 156, 158), which may support a narrower construction limited to discrete, separate locations (’275 Patent, col. 10:11-21).
- The Term: "adjust a length of the body" (’470 Patent, Claim 1).
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’470 Patent depends on whether the accused carrier's adjustment mechanism alters this specific dimension. The claim itself defines "length of the body" as "from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification (incorporated from the parent ’275 Patent) explains that adjusting the bucket seat settings changes the "wearable height" of the carrier, which may support an interpretation that any adjustment affecting the carrier's vertical fit meets this limitation (’275 Patent, col. 12:10-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s explicit definition—"from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body"—is highly specific. An argument could be made that this requires a direct change to that particular vertical dimension, as opposed to other adjustments that might indirectly affect how the carrier fits a child.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The infringement counts are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶30, 35).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Mabe knew or should have known that its actions constitute infringement" (Compl. ¶28). The basis for this alleged pre-suit knowledge may include Plaintiff's public marking of its own products with the patent numbers on its website (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Does the adjustment mechanism of the Mabe Monarch Buckle Carrier function in a way that meets the specific limitations of a "base width adjuster" that couples at "multiple locations" as required by the ’275 Patent, and does it "adjust a length of the body" as specifically defined by the ’470 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of function: As the complaint's specific factual support for infringement is contained in exhibits not provided to the court, the case will turn on whether the evidence in Defendant’s product, website, and Instruction Manual, once produced, demonstrates that the accused carrier operates in the manner required by the asserted claims.