DCT

6:25-cv-00508

Kids2 LLC v. Carter's Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00508, E.D. Tex., 12/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain multiple regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and have committed acts of infringement, such as selling the accused products, within the district.
  • 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 platform.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns stationary activity centers for pre-walking infants, a segment of the juvenile products market focused on both entertainment and motor skill development.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants have been aware of the patent-in-suit since at least February 2019, when it was cited during the prosecution of a U.S. design patent assigned to Defendant Skip Hop. This allegation forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

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
2019-02-01 Alleged latest date of Defendant's awareness of the ’560 Patent
2025-12-16 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 describes an "unsatisfied need" in the art for a stationary child exercise apparatus that can support a pre-walking child over a resilient surface, allowing the child to develop leg muscles and coordination needed for standing and walking through a bouncing motion (’560 Patent, col. 2:62-67). Prior art devices were noted as either providing bouncing motion through the seat rather than the child's legs or being unsuitable for children not yet able to stand on their own (’560 Patent, col. 1:32-37, 46-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a stationary apparatus combining a seat, supporting legs, and a "resilient support surface" suspended horizontally from the legs and positioned between the seat and the floor (’560 Patent, col. 4:10-12). This configuration allows a seated child’s feet to rest on the surface, enabling them to "bounce vertically by pushing its legs downwardly against the resilient support surface" (’560 Patent, col. 4:13-15). As depicted in Figure 3, the child is supported by the seat while their legs engage the bouncing pad below. The patent also discloses methods for adjusting the height and tension of the surface to accommodate a child's growth (’560 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This design integrates the functions of a supportive stationary activity center with a leg-driven bouncer, targeting the developmental stage where infants are building strength for standing and walking (’560 Patent, col. 3:60-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶26, 32).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A children's exercise apparatus comprising one or more legs supported on a floor;
    • a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs and 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," suggesting the possibility that other claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. p. 11, ¶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 Accused Products are described as stationary children's exercise apparatuses that include a seat supported by legs and a "foot support platform" below the seat (Compl. p. 8-9). The complaint alleges this platform allows a child to "[s]it, swivel, bounce & play" and that marketing materials describe the products as a "Baby Bouncer" (Compl. p. 8-9). The complaint provides a photograph showing a child seated in the Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud product with its feet on the platform (Compl. p. 8). The Accused Products are alleged to be direct competitors to Plaintiff's own products and are sold through major retailers (Compl. ¶¶24, 30-31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’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 accused product is a children's exercise apparatus, described on its website as a "gym" designed for babies and toddlers. ¶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 shown in a product photograph. ¶26, 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 has a "rotating seat" that is directly supported by the four legs and allows the child's legs to extend downwardly. ¶26, p. 8 col. 4:7-10
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... The accused product contains a "foot support platform" suspended horizontally from the legs between the seat and the floor. A product diagram illustrates this suspension (Compl. p. 9). The platform allegedly allows the child to "bounce & play." ¶26, p. 9 col. 4:10-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's seat is "rigidly and directly supported by the legs" as claimed. Defendants may argue that the seat is supported by an intermediate activity table structure, which is in turn supported by the legs, rendering the support indirect and potentially outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused product's "foot support platform" meets the claim limitation of a "resilient support surface" with a "resiliency... adapted for allowing the child to bounce." The complaint relies on marketing language like "bounce & play" (Compl. p. 9). The key technical question will be whether the platform possesses a specific, engineered resiliency that stores and returns energy to facilitate bouncing, as described in the patent, or if it is a substantially rigid platform on which a child can merely push off.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "resilient support surface"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's novelty and the core of the infringement dispute. Its construction will determine whether a product with a simple foot platform, as opposed to an active bouncing mechanism like a trampoline, falls within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the support surface "may be formed of flexible material, rigid material, or a combination of both" (’560 Patent, col. 5:66 - col. 6:1). This language could support a construction that does not require the surface itself to be elastic, as long as the overall assembly provides resiliency.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention's purpose as enabling a "bouncing motion" (’560 Patent, col. 3:60-61). The detailed embodiments describe connectors that provide resiliency, such as "springs, rubber or elastic cords, or rubber rings" (’560 Patent, col. 6:2-3). This could support a narrower construction requiring a mechanism that actively stores and returns energy, akin to a spring.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Defendants' "instructions manual demonstrates how the child's foot should interact with the platform to properly bounce" (Compl. p. 9). This suggests Defendants instruct end-users on how to perform the allegedly infringing method of use (Compl. ¶34).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’560 Patent (Compl. ¶35). The specific factual basis is the allegation that the ’560 Patent was cited during the prosecution of a U.S. design patent assigned to Defendant Skip Hop, establishing knowledge "by, at latest, February 2019" (Compl. ¶25).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "resilient support surface," as used and described in the patent, be construed to cover the accused "foot support platform"? The case may turn on whether "resiliency" requires an active, spring-like quality or if it can encompass a more rigid platform that exhibits some degree of flex.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: what is the actual physical behavior of the accused platform? The dispute will likely move beyond marketing language to expert testimony and testing to determine if the platform is merely a passive footrest or if it stores and returns sufficient energy to be "adapted for allowing the child to bounce" in the manner claimed by the patent.