DCT
2:24-cv-00977
Oribel Pte LTD. v. Carters INC.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Oribel Pte Ltd. (Singapore)
- Defendant: Carter's Inc. (Delaware); The William Carter Company (Massachusetts); Carter's Retail, Inc. (Delaware); and Skip Hop, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC; Quisenberry Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00977, E.D. Tex., 02/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain numerous regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Skip Hop Activity Center products infringe a patent related to a portable, bouncing activity center for young children.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-functional childcare products, specifically stationary activity centers that provide a secure seat for an infant to bounce and play.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants were made aware of the application that matured into the patent-in-suit as early as April 2019, when it was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of a design patent owned by Defendant Skip Hop, Inc.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-06 | U.S. Patent No. 10,736,437 Priority Date |
| 2017-02-01 | Carter's Inc. acquires the Skip Hop brand (approx. date) |
| 2019-04-05 | Defendants allegedly aware of patent application |
| 2020-08-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,736,437 Issues |
| 2025-02-25 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,736,437 - "Portable Activity Center"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,736,437, "Portable Activity Center," issued August 11, 2020 (’437 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a consumer need for an improved childcare apparatus that is portable, lightweight, compact for storage, and safe, while also allowing a child to bounce to be entertained and strengthen leg muscles (’437 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable activity center featuring a frame, foldable legs, and a seat within a tray. The '437 Patent describes two distinct systems to enable a bouncing motion: one where the entire tray is suspended above the frame by springs, and another, recited in the asserted claim, where the seat itself incorporates "at least one elastic portion" that permits "vertical reciprocating movement" (’437 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:27-36). The apparatus can also be converted into a table by placing a cover over the seat opening (’437 Patent, col. 1:51-53).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to combine portability, entertainment (bouncing), and multi-functionality (conversion to a table) into a single product for young children (’437 Patent, col. 1:23-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (’437 Patent, col. 13:13-14:12; Compl. ¶41).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A frame and a plurality of legs.
- A tray mounted to the frame with an opening.
- A seat support mounted to the tray.
- A seat positioned in the opening, having a top annular section, a mid section, and a lower crotch section, with the top annular section attached to the seat support.
- At least one elastic portion located in the mid section of the seat, which permits vertical bouncing movement in response to the child's motion.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Skip Hop Activity Center products" and similar products sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶43).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as activity centers that feature a "360-degree rotating seat that turns and stretches for bouncing" (Compl. ¶56). The product is marketed for three stages of use: "Sit, swivel, bounce & play; Cruise & interact; Play table" (Compl. ¶56). An exploded-view diagram from the product's instructions shows its constituent parts, including a platform with legs, a tabletop with an opening, a seat, and a seat cover (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges the Skip Hop brand is a "leading baby and young child lifestyle brand" acquired by Carter's Inc. for $140 million (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’437 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable activity center for use by a young child comprising: a frame; | The accused products are alleged to comprise a frame. A visual with a red circle highlights the accused frame structure. | ¶47 | col. 6:11-15 |
| a plurality of legs for supporting the frame; | The accused products are alleged to have a plurality of legs to support the frame. A visual highlights four legs on the accused product. | ¶48 | col. 6:15-20 |
| a tray mounted to the frame, the tray having an opening; | The accused products are alleged to have a tray or tabletop with an opening, as shown in an exploded-view diagram from the product's instructions. | ¶¶49-50 | col. 6:20-25 |
| a seat support mounted to the tray; | The accused products are alleged to comprise a seat support that is mounted to the tray. A product diagram illustrates the seat support mounting to the tray. | ¶51 | col. 6:25-27 |
| a seat positioned within the opening, the seat having a top annular section, a lower crotch section and mid section...wherein the seat is positioned securely attached, via the top annular section, to the seat support; and | The accused products allegedly have a seat with the claimed sections, which is attached to the seat support and positioned within the opening. | ¶¶52-54 | col. 11:27-36 |
| at least one elastic portion in the mid section of the seat that operate to permit the seat to support a child placed within the seat and to permit vertical reciprocating movement with respect to the frame in response to bouncing movement by the child. | The accused products allegedly include an "elastic portion of mid section" that permits the seat to stretch for bouncing. An annotated photo points to the fabric midsection of the seat. | ¶55 | col. 11:29-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the mechanism that allows bouncing in the accused product meets the specific limitation of "at least one elastic portion in the mid section of the seat." The '437 patent discloses this as a distinct embodiment from a tray suspended by springs (’437 Patent, col. 7:37-48, col. 11:27-44). The litigation may focus on whether the accused product's bouncing function arises from an elastic fabric integrated into the seat itself, as claimed, or from a different mechanism not covered by Claim 1.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the seat itself "stretches for bouncing" (Compl. ¶56). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the fabric in the "mid section" of the accused seat is an "elastic portion" and that this specific portion is the operative component enabling "vertical reciprocating movement," as opposed to flex in the seat support or another part of the assembly.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "at least one elastic portion in the mid section of the seat"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific mechanism for bouncing required by the asserted claim. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's method of enabling a bounce falls within the scope of Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses multiple, distinct bouncing mechanisms, and infringement will depend on which mechanism the accused product is found to employ.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain meaning of "elastic portion" should not be limited to a specific structure and can encompass any part of the seat's mid-section made of a material that stretches and contributes to bouncing. The specification states that a suspension system with "one or more elastic portions 232, is incorporated into the seat 112" (’437 Patent, col. 11:29-31), without limiting the form of that incorporation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited to the embodiment shown in the patent's figures, which depict discrete "elastic portions" (232) as distinct patches within the seat fabric (’437 Patent, FIG. 29, FIG. 31). This interpretation is strengthened by the patent's separate disclosure of an alternative suspension system using leaf or torsion springs to suspend the entire tray, suggesting the "elastic portion in the seat" is a specific and distinct feature (’437 Patent, col. 7:37-65).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief requests a judgment of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 19, ¶(b)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement and do not specify facts supporting the knowledge and intent elements required for an indirect infringement claim, such as referencing user manuals that instruct infringing use.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful. This allegation is based on both post-suit knowledge and, more significantly, alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendants have been aware of the patent family since at least April 5, 2019, when the application leading to the ’437 Patent was cited by the USPTO against Defendants in the prosecution of their own separate design patent (Compl. ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Do the accused Skip Hop products achieve their bouncing function through an "elastic portion in the mid section of the seat," as required by the asserted claim, or do they rely on a different technical solution, such as a suspension system for the entire tray assembly, which is an alternative embodiment disclosed in the patent but not covered by Claim 1?
- The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the court interpret the phrase "elastic portion in the mid section of the seat" broadly to cover any elastic material in that area, or will it be construed more narrowly to mean the discrete elastic patches illustrated in the patent's figures, potentially excluding products that use a uniformly stretchy fabric or a different structural mechanism?
- A third key question relates to willfulness: The complaint provides a specific factual basis for alleging pre-suit knowledge of the invention. A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can prove that this notice, occurring during the prosecution of Defendants' own patent, is sufficient to establish the subjective recklessness required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.