Hong Kong Lute Technology Co Ltd v. Ergo Baby Carrier Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hong Kong Lute Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Momcozy (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Arête Law Group
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01649, W.D. Wash., 10/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant directed patent enforcement activities to the district by submitting an infringement complaint to Seattle-based Amazon.com, Inc., and because Defendant agreed to jurisdiction and venue in Seattle by participating in the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express program.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its baby carriers do not infringe Defendant's patent related to adjustable child carriers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns soft-structured baby carriers with adjustment mechanisms designed to ergonomically support children of varying sizes as they grow.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was initiated by Plaintiff Momcozy after Defendant Ergo Baby filed an infringement complaint against Momcozy’s products through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. The APEX complaint accused Momcozy of infringing Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit. Filing a declaratory judgment action is one of the procedural options Amazon provides to accused sellers to prevent the removal of their product listings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-10-30	'275 Patent Priority Date
2019-10-01	'275 Patent Issue Date
2024-09-20	Amazon sends APEX Notice to Momcozy
2024-10-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,426,275 - “Adjustable Child Carrier”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,426,275, titled “Adjustable Child Carrier,” issued on October 1, 2019 (’275 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art child carriers, noting that many are not designed to accommodate the natural C-shaped spinal curve of an infant, which can put undue stress on the child’s sacrum and pelvis (Compl. ¶18; ’275 Patent, col. 1:42-51). Furthermore, conventional carriers are often designed for a limited age range, forcing parents to purchase multiple carriers or use cumbersome "infant inserts" as a child grows (Compl. ¶18; ’275 Patent, col. 2:6-20).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a soft-structured child carrier with an integrated, adjustable bucket seat that can be reconfigured to support children of various sizes in an ergonomic "spread squat" position. The invention focuses on providing a plurality of distinct seat configurations, each with a different seat depth and width, to adapt to a child's developmental stages from infancy to toddlerhood without requiring a separate infant insert (Compl. ¶20; ’275 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide a single, adaptable carrier that maintains proper ergonomic support throughout a child’s early growth, offering a more convenient and potentially healthier alternative to a fixed-size carrier or one requiring separate inserts (’275 Patent, col. 3:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies Claim 1 as the "Accused Claim" asserted by Defendant in the underlying Amazon APEX proceeding (Compl. ¶21, ¶24).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A waist belt adapted for securing about a wearer's hips;
  • A main body coupled to the waist belt, comprising a torso support portion and an adjustable bucket seat;
  • The adjustable bucket seat must be "configurable in a plurality of bucket seat configurations," where each configuration has a different "a) bucket seat depth and b) bucket seat width" and is adapted to support a child in a "spread squat position";
  • The bucket seat itself comprises a seat center portion, thigh supports on either side, and a "base width adjuster" coupled to each thigh support;
  • The base width adjusters are configured for "selective coupling to the waist belt at multiple locations" to adjust the width of the main body.
• The complaint does not mention other claims, but Plaintiff reserves the right to seek judgment on all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Ergonomic, Cozy and Lightweight Baby Carrier," also referred to as the "Baby Carrier," sold by Plaintiff Momcozy (Compl. ¶9). The complaint identifies several specific products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶11, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The product is marketed as a "3-in-1 Baby Carrier" for everyday use and travel, featuring an "Ergonomic Waist EVA Support" that offers lumbar support to the wearer (Compl. ¶10). A screengrab from Momcozy's website shows the accused product, marketed as suitable for "Newborn to Toddler" (Compl. p. 3).
• The complaint alleges that Momcozy is a "top-selling mother and baby brand in North America" with over 3,000,000 customers (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis or claim chart. Instead, it makes a general assertion of non-infringement, focusing on a single, specific limitation of Claim 1. The complaint alleges that the Momcozy Accused Products "do not meet, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, every element of the Asserted Claim" (Compl. ¶25). Specifically, the complaint states that the products fail to meet the limitation requiring "an adjustable bucket seat configurable in a plurality of bucket seat configurations, each of the plurality of bucket seat configurations having a different a) bucket seat depth and b) bucket seat width" (Compl. ¶26).

The complaint does not provide further technical details about the Accused Products' functionality to support this assertion or to allow for a more detailed tabular comparison.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary dispute, as framed by the complaint, centers on the scope of the "plurality of bucket seat configurations" limitation. A key question for the court will be whether the adjustment mechanism on the Momcozy carrier creates configurations that have both different depths and different widths, as required by the claim language.
• Technical Questions: The complaint raises an evidentiary question: What is the actual method of adjustment for the Momcozy carrier, and what are the resulting changes to its seat geometry? The litigation will require factual evidence demonstrating how the accused product operates and whether that operation falls within the scope of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"an adjustable bucket seat configurable in a plurality of bucket seat configurations, each of the plurality of bucket seat configurations having a different a) bucket seat depth and b) bucket seat width"

Context and Importance

This phrase from Claim 1 is the sole limitation explicitly disputed in the complaint and is therefore central to the non-infringement action (Compl. ¶26). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what level and type of adjustability are required to infringe. The dispute will likely involve whether a single adjustment feature that affects both depth and width meets the limitation, or if more complex, discrete adjustability is required.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may point to the patent’s general statements about accommodating a "wide range of sizes" and adjusting to a "growing baby" (’275 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:57-59). They might argue that any adjustment mechanism that produces resultant configurations with measurably different depths and widths satisfies the claim, even if the changes are co-dependent.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope may highlight the specification's description of specific, distinct adjustment mechanisms and resulting configurations. For example, the patent describes "base width adjusters" that are set at discrete positions (e.g., narrow, moderate, wide) which in turn create different seat depths and dart shapes (’275 Patent, col. 10:10-20; Fig. 3A-3C). This could support an interpretation that the claim requires distinct, predetermined configurations, not merely incidental changes resulting from a single, continuous adjustment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Exceptional Case: In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could form the basis for an award of attorney's fees (Compl. p. 8, ¶C). The complaint does not, however, state the factual basis for this allegation.

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction: Can the requirement for a "plurality of bucket seat configurations" with both different depths and widths be met by a single adjustment mechanism that alters both dimensions concurrently, or does the claim, as supported by the patent's embodiments, require multiple, discrete settings that are intentionally designed to achieve these different configurations?
• The dispositive issue will likely be a question of fact and evidence: Based on the court's construction of the key claim term, does the evidence show that the adjustment features on the Momcozy carrier actually create the multiple, distinct seat depth and width configurations required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?