Evenflo Co Inc v. Veer Gear LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Evenflo Company, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Veer Gear LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Hostetler LLP
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00068, S.D. Ohio, 01/27/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on general federal venue statutes. Personal jurisdiction is asserted based on Defendant Veer's conduct in Ohio, specifically its accusations of infringement directed at Plaintiff Evenflo, a company with its principal place of business in Miamisburg, Ohio.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Evenflo seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, and that U.S. patents owned by Defendant Veer are invalid, following receipt of infringement allegations from Veer.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the market for multi-purpose, collapsible consumer wagons designed for transporting children and cargo.
• Key Procedural History: This action was initiated by Evenflo after receiving letters from Veer's representatives on December 18, 2019, and January 7, 2020. These letters accused Evenflo's "Pivot Xplore" product line of infringing the asserted patents and included claim charts, creating the "substantial controversy" that provides the basis for this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-29	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,077,062
2016-03-08	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,507,857
2018-09-18	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,077,062
2019-12-17	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,507,857
2019-12-18	Evenflo receives first letter from Veer's representative.
2020-01-07	Evenflo receives second letter with claim charts from Veer's counsel.
2020-01-27	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,077,062 - "Wagon with adapter for installing child seat," issued September 18, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for wagons that can serve multiple purposes, noting that conventional wagons are often uncomfortable for children, while those with built-in seats are less suitable for carrying other items like beach gear or toys (’062 Patent, col. 1:32-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a collapsible wagon with at least one "pivot wall" that can be folded down from its upright position. This creates a space where a separate child seat (such as a car seat) can be installed using a seat adapter. The adapter is designed to engage with latch components on the wagon's remaining upright walls, effectively replacing the structural function of the folded-down wall and allowing for versatile use. (’062 Patent, col. 1:46-61; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a modular system that allows a single wagon to be easily converted between a general cargo carrier and a specialized transport for infants or toddlers in their own dedicated seats. (’062 Patent, col. 12:5-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint indicates that Claim 1, an independent claim, has been asserted (Compl. ¶14).
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A seat adapter for mounting a child seat to a wagon with two opposing upright walls.
  • One or more adapter-to-wagon latch components configured to removably mount to each of the opposing walls.
  • One or more adapter-to-seat latch components extending from the adapter-to-wagon latch components, configured for removable mounting to the child seat.
  • A structural cross-member extending between the adapter-to-wagon latch components to provide structural support to the wagon. (’062 Patent, col. 24:8-21).

U.S. Patent No. 10,507,857 - "Wagon with collapsible footwell and position locking handle," issued December 17, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses general drawbacks of conventional consumer-use wagons, aiming to improve features for multi-purpose use. (’857 Patent, col. 1:33-37).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes two main features. The first is a collapsible footwell for children, which can be repositioned between a lowered "extended/use position" and a raised "collapsed/storage position" to make the wagon more compact for transport or shipping. The second is a pull-handle with a position-locking mechanism that allows the handle to be secured in multiple discrete, predefined positions (e.g., "stowed," "upright," and "down"). (’857 Patent, col. 1:39-51, col. 6:42-65).
• Technical Importance: These features enhance the wagon's convenience by allowing it to collapse into a smaller volume and by improving the ergonomics and safety of the handle, preventing it from falling to the ground or resting against the wagon's seatbacks. (’857 Patent, col. 7:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint indicates that Claim 1, an independent claim, has been asserted (Compl. ¶14).
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A wagon with a base frame, a peripheral sidewall, and wheels.
  • A collapsible footwell feature including a footrest and upright elements connecting the footrest to the base frame, where the footwell is positionable into a plurality of orientations.
  • A position-locking handle feature with a handle that is repositionable between multiple use positions and a storage position. (’857 Patent, col. 8:62-col. 9:4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Evenflo Pivot Xplore" product is the primary accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶13). For the '062 Patent, the allegations also involve the product in combination with the "Pivot Xplore Second Seat" and the "Car Seat Adapter" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the accused product's operation. Based on its name and the context of the dispute, it is a multi-functional wagon or stroller designed for transporting children. The allegations suggest it can be converted between a wagon and a stroller and can accommodate accessories like a second seat or a car seat adapter (Compl. ¶14). The product is described as being made, used, offered for sale, and sold by Evenflo, a "juvenile products leader" (Compl. ¶¶3, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. It alleges that Evenflo received letters from Veer's counsel that included claim charts asserting infringement (Compl. ¶14). However, these claim charts were not attached as exhibits to the complaint. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a complete element-by-element analysis of Veer's infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '062 Patent: A central question will be whether the combination of the Evenflo Pivot Xplore product and its "Car Seat Adapter" includes every element of Claim 1. Specifically, the analysis may focus on whether the accused adapter provides a "structural cross-member extending between the one or more adapter-to-wagon latch components to provide structural support to the wagon" as recited in the claim (’062 Patent, col. 24:18-21). The court will have to determine if the accused product's components meet this specific structural and functional requirement.
  • '857 Patent: The dispute will likely turn on whether the accused Pivot Xplore product contains a "collapsible footwell feature" and a "position-locking handle feature" that fall within the scope of the claim limitations. For the footwell, the question may be whether it is "positionable into a plurality of orientations" in the manner claimed (’857 Patent, col. 9:1-2). For the handle, the analysis will question whether its mechanism for adjusting positions meets the definition of the claimed "position-locking handle feature."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '062 Patent:

• The Term: "structural cross-member" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines a key component that allegedly provides structural integrity to the wagon when a wall is displaced. The presence and function of such a component in the accused product will be a primary point of contention. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a single, unitary component or could be read on a multi-part assembly, and what level of "structural support" is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the shape or material of the cross-member, only its function ("to provide structural support") and location ("extending between the...latch components") (’062 Patent, col. 24:18-21). This may support an argument that any component fulfilling this role, regardless of its specific form, meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the cross-member as a component that "substitutes for the displaced wall to provide structural integrity to the wagon" (’062 Patent, col. 21:63-col. 22:2). Embodiments show it as a distinct, robust-looking tube or rod (e.g., cross-member 10190) that also serves a safety function to "block off the area" (’062 Patent, col. 22:3-14, Fig. 47). This could support a narrower construction requiring a component that specifically mimics the bracing function of the removed wall.

For the '857 Patent:

• The Term: "collapsible footwell feature" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The definition of this feature is central to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely focus on how the accused product's footwell operates and whether its mechanism for changing positions corresponds to the claimed "feature."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites the feature as including a "footrest" and "upright elements" and being "positionable into a plurality of orientations" (’857 Patent, col. 8:65-col. 9:2). This broad functional language could be argued to cover any mechanism that allows a footwell to move between different positions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details several specific embodiments, including telescoping assemblies, pivoting linkages, and X-braces (’857 Patent, col. 3:12-20, col. 4:11-23, col. 4:56-64). An accused infringer might argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed mechanisms or structures of similar complexity, rather than any simple height adjustment. The summary describes the purpose as providing a "compact profile/arrangement to reduce the occupied footwell volume for storage and/or transport purposes" (’857 Patent, col. 2:39-42), suggesting the "collapsible" nature is key.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: This complaint, being a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, contains no allegations of indirect infringement against Veer.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness. However, it does acknowledge that Veer, through its counsel, was "putting Evenflo on notice of its infringement" (Compl. ¶14). This pre-suit notice is a fact that Veer would likely use to support a potential counterclaim for willful infringement against Evenflo.

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

This case presents two primary battlegrounds: claim interpretation and validity. The central questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of invalidity: As the central claim for relief in the complaint, the court must first determine whether Claim 1 of the '062 Patent is invalid over the Engelman reference and whether Claim 1 of the '857 Patent is invalid over the Chen reference, as alleged by Evenflo (Compl. ¶¶17, 22).
2. A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "structural cross-member" in the '062 Patent be construed to read on the specific design of the Evenflo Pivot Xplore's car seat adapter system, or does the accused product lack a corresponding structural element?
3. A third question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused product's footwell mechanism operate as a "collapsible footwell feature" as that term is defined by the '857 Patent's claims and specification, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the way the patented and accused technologies achieve their respective functions?