DCT
1:25-cv-04141
Ergo Baby Carrier Inc v. Babybjorn Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (Hawaii)
- Defendant: BabyBjorn Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lathrop GPM LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04141, S.D.N.Y., 05/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s baby carriers infringe a patent related to an adjustable child carrier designed to ergonomically support children of varying sizes.
- Technical Context: The technology involves soft-structured, ergonomic baby carriers that provide adjustable seat and thigh support to accommodate a child’s growth from infancy to toddlerhood.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has marked its own products with the patent number via its website, which may be relevant to future willfulness or damages claims. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 |
| 2023-10-17 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 |
| 2025-05-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 - “Adjustable Child Carrier”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“Adjustable Child Carrier”), issued October 17, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in prior art baby carriers, noting that conventional soft-structured carriers are often designed for a limited age and size range, which can compromise an infant's ergonomic positioning or require cumbersome "infant inserts" (’055 Patent, col. 1:47-59; col. 2:3-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, adjustable child carrier that can be adapted to a child’s changing size from newborn to toddler. The solution centers on an adjustable bucket seat that can be modified in both width and depth, allowing the carrier to maintain an ergonomic "M-shape" or "spread-squat" position for the child throughout different growth stages without needing a separate insert (’055 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-9). Figures 3A-3C illustrate how base width adjusters can be repositioned to alter the shape and depth of the bucket seat.
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a single carrier that safely and ergonomically supports a child across a wide range of developmental stages, a significant convenience and safety consideration for caregivers (’055 Patent, col. 2:31-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 of the ’055 Patent (Compl. ¶11).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- An adjustable child carrier comprising a body that forms a bucket seat, a neck support, first and second shoulder straps, and attachments on the shoulder straps to receive the neck support.
- The neck support is configured in an upward supporting position when coupled to the attachments.
- The body forms first and second thigh supports.
- The carrier defines a first, second, and third setting.
- The carrier includes at least one thigh support adjuster coupled to the thigh supports.
- The thigh support adjuster is selectively positionable to one of the three settings to "adjust a length of the body to accommodate various sizes of the child as the child ages," with the length defined from the bucket seat bottom to the body top.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more of the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶27.A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses the "BabyBjorn Baby Carrier Mini" and the "BabyBjorn Baby Carrier Free" of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused products are soft-structured baby carriers that directly compete with Plaintiff’s own "Omni Breeze" and "Omni Dream" products (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes a photograph of the BabyBjorn Baby Carrier Mini, depicting a soft-structured carrier with shoulder straps and a main body panel (Compl. p. 5, top). A similar photograph of the BabyBjorn Baby Carrier Free is also provided, showing its structural features (Compl. p. 6, top).
The complaint alleges that these products incorporate features that practice every limitation of at least Claim 1 of the ’055 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products meet every limitation of at least Claim 1 of the ’055 Patent, but references external claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 5) that were not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.
Infringement Allegations: U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An adjustable child carrier... comprising: a body configured to support the child, wherein the body forms a bucket seat configured to support legs of the child; | The complaint alleges that the main fabric structure of the BabyBjorn carriers, visible in product photographs, constitutes the claimed body and bucket seat. | ¶¶11, 15, 17 | col. 7:1-9 |
| a neck support comprising a first neck support attachment and a second neck support attachment; | The complaint alleges the accused carriers include an upper panel section functioning as a neck support with corresponding attachments. | ¶¶11, 15, 17 | col. 14:7-20 |
| a first shoulder strap... and a second shoulder strap... a first attachment... and a second attachment... wherein the neck support is configured in an upward neck supporting position... | The complaint alleges the visible shoulder straps and associated buckles on the accused carriers meet these limitations, enabling the neck support to be secured in an upward position. | ¶¶11, 15, 17 | col. 8:1-12 |
| the body forming a first thigh support and a second thigh support; | The complaint alleges that the lower portions of the accused carriers' body panels form supports for the child's thighs. | ¶¶11, 15, 17 | col. 8:49-64 |
| a first setting, a second setting, and a third setting defined by the adjustable child carrier; and at least one thigh support adjuster... configured to be selectively positioned to one of the first setting, the second setting, or the third setting to thereby adjust a length of the body... | The complaint alleges that the accused carriers include an adjustment mechanism that functions as the claimed "thigh support adjuster" and can be placed in three distinct "settings" to alter the body length for different sized children. | ¶¶11, 15, 17 | col. 11:10-19 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the adjustment mechanisms in the accused products meet the specific definition of "at least one thigh support adjuster" that is "selectively positioned to one of the first setting, the second setting, or the third setting." The defense could argue that its adjustment mechanism, if any, does not create three discrete "settings" as claimed.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products' adjustment features perform the specific function required by the claim: to "adjust a length of the body... defined from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body." The complaint does not provide specific evidence of how the accused products achieve this alleged function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at least one thigh support adjuster"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the invention's adjustability. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products are found to have a corresponding structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the scope of mechanical features that can be accused of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring a component that is "configured to be selectively positioned." This could support an interpretation covering any mechanism that achieves the claimed positioning and adjustment, not just the specific ones shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments, such as an adjuster comprising "a strip of material" that "runs laterally inboard through a fabric tunnel" and uses "spaced... fasteners" (’055 Patent, col. 11:45-56; Figs. 4A-4C). A defendant may argue these details limit the term to the structures disclosed, not any adjustment mechanism.
The Term: "adjust a length of the body... wherein the length is defined from a bottom of the bucket seat to a top of the body"
- Context and Importance: This functional language specifies the result of using the "thigh support adjuster." A central dispute may arise over whether the accused products' adjustability feature, even if it exists, actually alters this specific vertical dimension of the carrier.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this language covers any adjustment that makes the carrier vertically longer or shorter to better fit a child, a general concept of accommodation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly links this length adjustment to the depth of the bucket seat, stating that a deeper bucket for infants "shortens the wearable height" while a shallower bucket for toddlers results in a "longest height" (’055 Patent, col. 12:20-44). Figures 6A-6C visually depict this changing length (204). A defendant could argue its product must be shown to operate in this specific manner to infringe.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant "knew or should have known" its actions constituted infringement, forming the basis for a willfulness claim (Compl. ¶21). This allegation may be supported by Plaintiff's assertion that its own patented products are marked and that Defendant operates as a direct competitor in the same market space (Compl. ¶¶12, 19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define the structural term "thigh support adjuster" and its associated functional requirement to "adjust a length of the body"? The outcome of this legal determination will largely frame the factual question of infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, through discovery and expert analysis, that the accused BabyBjorn carriers possess a mechanism that operates in three discrete "settings" to alter the carrier's vertical body length in the specific manner required by Claim 1, or will the evidence show a different, non-infringing method of adjustment?