DCT
2:25-cv-01223
Kids2 LLC v. William Carter Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kids2, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Carter's, Inc. (Delaware); THE WILLIAM CARTER CO. (Massachusetts); Carter's Retail, Inc. (Delaware); and Skip Hop, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foley & Lardner; MT2 Law Group
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01223, E.D. Tex., 12/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain multiple regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, from which they allegedly sell the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Skip Hop line of children's activity centers infringes a patent related to a stationary child exercise apparatus featuring a resilient bouncing surface.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to stationary child exercisers, a product category designed to promote motor skill development in infants who are not yet able to stand or walk independently.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patent since at least February 2019, when it was cited during the patent prosecution of a design patent now assigned to Defendant Skip Hop. The complaint also notes that certain of Defendants' "Activity Center" products are the subject of separate, ongoing patent litigation in the same district.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-05-26 | ’560 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-06-22 | ’560 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-02-01 | Carter's, Inc. acquires the Skip Hop brand (approximate date) |
| 2019-02-01 | Alleged latest date of Defendants' awareness of the ’560 Patent |
| 2025-12-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,740,560 - "Stationary Child Exercise Apparatus With Bouncing Pad"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a gap in the market for children's exercisers. Prior art devices either provided a bouncing motion through the seat (which could cause spills from an attached tray) or were trampoline-like devices that required a child to be able to stand, making them unsuitable for younger infants. These devices also lacked adjustability for a growing child's strength ('560 Patent, col. 1:13-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a stationary apparatus that supports a child in a seat positioned above a "resilient support surface," or bouncing pad. The child's legs extend through openings in the seat to the surface below, allowing the child to create a bouncing motion by pushing with their legs, which helps develop muscles and coordination. The apparatus is designed so the bouncing action is isolated to the pad, keeping the seat and any attached activity tray stable ('560 Patent, col. 4:5-15; Fig. 3). The tension of the resilient surface can also be adjusted to account for a child's growth ('560 Patent, col. 2:15-20).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a way for infants who cannot yet stand to safely exercise their leg muscles using a natural bouncing motion, separating the exercise function from the activity tray and seat for stability.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('560 Patent, col. 13:52-68).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- one or more legs supported on a floor;
- a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs and being structured to support the child while allowing the child's legs to extend downwardly below the seat; and
- a resilient support surface suspended generally horizontally from at least one of the legs and positioned vertically between the seat and the floor, said resilient support surface having a resiliency that is adapted for allowing the child to bounce vertically by pushing its legs downwardly against the resilient support surface.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims of the Asserted Patent," but the infringement allegations focus exclusively on claim 1 of the ’560 Patent (Compl. ¶ 32; Prayer for Relief ¶ a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud, the Skip Hop Explore & More 3-stage activity center, and the Discoverosity Montessori Skip Hop line of products (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶ 2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as children's exercise apparatuses designed for babies and toddlers, sometimes referred to as a "gym" or "Baby Bouncer" (Compl. p. 7, 9).
- Their alleged functionality includes a seat supported by legs that allows a child to "[s]it, swivel, bounce & play" (Compl. p. 8). The products are alleged to include a "foot support platform" suspended horizontally between the seat and the floor, which allows the child to "bounce & play" (Compl. p. 9). The complaint includes a diagram from an instruction manual allegedly showing how a child's foot interacts with the platform to create a bouncing motion (Compl. p. 9).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are sold through Defendants' physical stores and online, as well as through other retailers, and that they "compete directly with Kids2's products" and "closely imitate the technology of the '560 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶ 29-31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint provides allegations mapping features of the Accused Products to the elements of claim 1 of the ’560 Patent.
’560 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A children's exercise apparatus for providing exercise functionality for a small child, said apparatus comprising: | The Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud is described as a children's exercise apparatus for babies and toddlers, referred to as a "gym." | ¶26; p. 7 | col. 4:5-6 |
| one or more legs supported on a floor; | The accused product contains four legs that are supported on a floor, as depicted in a photograph. | p. 8 | col. 4:6-7 |
| a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs and being structured to support the child while allowing the child's legs to extend downwardly below the seat; and | The accused product contains a seat directly supported by four legs, which allows the child's legs to extend downwardly. A product photograph shows a child in this configuration. | p. 8 | col. 4:7-9 |
| a resilient support surface suspended generally horizontally from at least one of the legs and positioned vertically between the seat and the floor, said resilient support surface having a resiliency that is adapted for allowing the child to bounce vertically by pushing its legs downwardly against the resilient support surface. | The accused product contains a "foot support platform" suspended horizontally from the legs, which is described as allowing the child to "bounce & play." A diagram allegedly shows how a child's foot should interact with the platform for bouncing. | p. 9 | col. 4:9-15 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "resilient support surface." The complaint alleges the accused "foot support platform" meets this limitation (Compl. p. 9). The dispute may focus on whether the specific material and suspension mechanism of the accused platform, which appears to be a solid platform, falls within the scope of "resilient," particularly as the patent discloses both flexible materials and rigid boards made resilient by their connectors ('560 Patent, col. 5:53-6:6).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a seat that is "rigidly and directly supported by the legs." The complaint alleges the accused seat is "directly supported by the four legs" (Compl. p. 8). A potential point of dispute is whether the connection between the seat and legs in the accused products meets the "rigidly and directly" limitation, which was intended to distinguish the invention from prior art where bouncing motion was transmitted through the seat structure itself ('560 Patent, col. 1:32-37).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resilient support surface"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused products' "foot support platform" infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "resiliency" is key to the patent's novelty and the infringement case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests resiliency can come from the surface material itself or from the connectors attaching it to the legs. It states the surface can be made of "flexible material, rigid material, or a combination of both" ('560 Patent, col. 5:66-6:1). An embodiment describes a "rigid plastic board" whose resiliency is provided by "springs, rubber or elastic cords, or rubber rings" used as connectors ('560 Patent, col. 6:3-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments emphasizing a flexible material could support a narrower reading. The specification describes forming the surface from "nylon, natural or synthetic elastomers, rubber, fabric mesh, woven polypropylene, or fabric" ('560 Patent, col. 5:56-59). The term "surface" itself might be argued to imply that the resiliency must be a property of the platform area the child pushes against, not just the connectors.
The Term: "seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs"
- Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from prior art where the seat itself bounced. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused products' seat assembly is considered "rigidly and directly supported."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "rigidly and directly." A party could argue it simply means the seat is fixed to the leg structure, without any independent suspension system, allowing for a wide range of structural connections to meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section criticizes prior art where "vertical motion provided by the springs in the towers is felt by the child through the seat, and not through the child's legs" and where the seat and tray "move together when the child bounces," which "may cause food or drinks on the tray to spill" ('560 Patent, col. 1:32-40). This context suggests "rigidly and directly" should be construed to mean a support structure that completely isolates the seat from the bouncing motion originating from the resilient surface.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, supported by the claim that Defendants' instructions manual "demonstrates how the child's foot should interact with the platform to properly bounce" (Compl. p. 9). This allegation suggests Defendants specifically instruct users on how to perform the allegedly infringing act of "bouncing vertically by pushing its legs downwardly" (Compl. ¶ 34; p. 9).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’560 Patent. The complaint asserts that Defendants have been aware of the patent "by, at latest, February 2019," because it was "cited during the prosecution of United States Design Patent No. D896,356—a patent that was applied for and is currently assigned to Skip Hop" (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "resilient support surface," as defined in the patent, be construed to read on the accused products' "foot support platform," and does the source of the resiliency (e.g., the platform material itself versus its connecting mechanism) affect the infringement analysis?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural function: does the connection between the seat and legs in the accused products meet the "rigidly and directly supported" limitation as understood in the context of the patent's stated goal of isolating the seat from the bouncing action?
- A third question will relate to intent: assuming infringement is found, do the facts surrounding the citation of the ’560 Patent in Defendants' own design patent prosecution file rise to the level of "egregious" conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement?