DCT

2:25-cv-02730

Little Beings Holdings Pty Ltd v. Sqe Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02730, W.D. Wash., 12/30/2025

  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because the Defendant is incorporated in, resides in, and maintains a physical presence in the state of Washington.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infant swaddling garments infringe three U.S. patents related to swaddle design that allows for an "arms-up" position.

  • Technical Context: The technology concerns infant sleepwear designed to combine the benefits of swaddling, such as suppressing the startle reflex, with an infant's natural tendency to self-soothe by bringing their hands to their mouth.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the lead patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent 9,179,711, at least as early as August 2018, when it was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent application. The ’711 patent was also the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, which resulted in the cancellation of claims 2-16 but confirmed the patentability of asserted independent claims 1 and 17, and claim 18. The complaint also references multiple pre-suit notification letters sent to the Defendant regarding all three asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-06-30 Priority Date for ’711, ’268, and ’517 Patents
2015-11-10 ’711 Patent Issued
2018-08-30 Defendant allegedly cited ’711 Patent in its own patent prosecution
2019-08-01 Accused Products first sold (on or about this date)
2022-06-14 ’268 Patent Issued
2022-07-26 ’517 Patent Issued
2023-04-15 Plaintiff sent first notification letter to Defendant
2024-02-09 IPR Certificate issued for ’711 Patent
2024-07-08 Plaintiff sent second notification letter to Defendant
2025-11-24 Plaintiff sent notification letters regarding all Asserted Patents
2025-12-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,179,711 - *"Swaddling Suit"*, issued November 10, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty parents face with traditional swaddling, which can risk being too loose (creating a suffocation hazard) or too tight (risking hip dysplasia). It also notes that many swaddling products restrict an infant's arms away from their face, preventing natural self-soothing behaviors (’971 Patent, col. 1:36 - col. 2:54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pre-formed garment that solves these problems with a specific geometry. It features an upper "bodice portion" for the torso and two "wing portions" that enclose the infant's arms in a raised, elbow-bent position (’971 Patent, Abstract). This design is intended to suppress the startle reflex while simultaneously keeping the infant's hands accessible to their mouth for self-soothing, a combination purported to reduce risks associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (’971 Patent, col. 10:48-61).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a ready-to-use alternative to traditional swaddling blankets that integrated the separate benefits of limb restraint and access to hands for self-soothing into a single garment design (’971 Patent, col. 10:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, which survived an inter partes review.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (as corrected) include:
    • An upper portion for enclosing an infant's upper body, comprising a bodice portion, a neck hole, and two wing portions.
    • The wing portions extend laterally from the bodice portion.
    • Each wing portion has a wing tip positioned above the level of the neck hole.
    • The wing portions are configured to completely surround and retain an infant's arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position.
    • The garment is tapered in at a waist line below the wing portions.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including those that depend upon claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 11,357,268 - *"Swaddling Garment"*, issued June 14, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part in the same patent family, the ’268 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’711 Patent: the risks and difficulties of traditional swaddling and the need to allow for self-soothing (’268 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is again a garment with "wing portions" designed to hold an infant's arms in a specific orientation. The claims of the ’268 Patent emphasize dimensional relationships, specifying that the wing portions prevent full extension of the arm by being "shortened" relative to the arm's length and that the wing tips extend above the shoulder line. This geometry maintains the hands near the face while still restricting limb movement to suppress the startle reflex (’268 Patent, col. 8:50-61; FIG. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: The invention refines the "arms-up" swaddle concept by focusing on specific proportional constraints intended to achieve the dual goals of safety and infant comfort (’268 Patent, col. 2:57-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, and 21. The analysis will focus on claim 1.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An upper portion for enclosing the torso and arms, comprising a bodice portion and two wing portions.
    • The wing portions are configured to completely surround and retain an arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position.
    • The wing tip of each wing portion extends above the shoulder line of the bodice portion.
    • The garment is tapered in at a waistline below the wing portions to restrict the arms from moving out of the wings.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 11,395,517 - *"Swaddling Garment"*, issued July 26, 2022

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the same technical problem of balancing swaddling and self-soothing (’517 Patent, col. 1:13-33). Its claimed solution focuses on the specific construction where the arm portions taper inwardly toward the bodice to retain a bent elbow, and where the bodice itself has a "narrowed width" adjacent to the arm portions, a combination designed to prevent the infant's arms from moving out of the intended raised position (’517 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:26-41).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1, 11, and 22 (Compl. ¶69).

Accused Features

The accused features are the "Arms Up Half-length Sleeves" of the Transitional and Omni Swaddle Sacks, which are alleged to embody the claimed tapered arm portions and narrowed bodice design to maintain the infant's arms in a flexed, raised position (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: SQE’s "Transitional Swaddle Sack" and "Omni Swaddle Sack" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶21).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are infant sleep garments featuring what Defendant's website calls "Arms Up Half-length Sleeves" with "Foldover Mitten Cuffs" (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). According to marketing materials cited in the complaint, when the mitten cuffs are closed, the sleeves are designed to provide "partial suppression of the Moro (Startle) reflex" and "support baby's arms in a natural, flexed position" (Compl. ¶¶31, 32). A promotional graphic for the Transitional Swaddle Sack shows a three-step process where closed cuffs provide this partial suppression, while opening one or both cuffs allows for self-soothing or transitioning out of swaddling (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges the products are tapered at the waistline below the sleeves (Compl. ¶35). The Omni Swaddle Sack includes an additional swaddling wrap, but the infringement allegations appear focused on the function of the sleeves when the arms are not bound by this wrap (Compl. ¶¶21, 34). The complaint states these products are sold through Defendant's website and on Amazon, with the Transitional Swaddle Sack described as a "best-selling transition swaddle" (Compl. ¶¶22, 39, 45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead independent claims of the first two asserted patents based on the narrative assertions in the complaint.

9,179,711 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
wing portions ... extending laterally from the bodice portion The Accused Products have sleeves that are oriented in an upright, lateral position relative to the torso. ¶24 col. 8:11-19
large enough to completely surround and retain an infant's arm and hand When the mitten cuffs are closed, the sleeves are alleged to completely surround the infant's arm and hand. ¶28 col. 8:19-22
in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position Photographs on Defendant's website allegedly show infants in the products with their arms in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position. ¶¶29-30 col. 10:48-55
tapered in at a waist line below said wing portions The Accused Products are tapered at the waist line below their sleeves. ¶35 col. 11:5-9

11,357,268 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
two wing portions ... extending laterally from a side of the bodice portion The Accused Products have "Arms Up Half-length Sleeves" extending from the torso portion of the garment. A promotional image for the Omni Swaddle Sack shows the product's unique design helps a baby sleep better with "arms up." (Compl. p. 9). ¶23 col. 16:66-67
configured to completely surround and retain an arm and hand of the infant in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position The sleeves with closed mitten cuffs allegedly surround the infant's arms and support them in a "natural, flexed position," described as hand-raised and elbow-bent. A graphic for the Transitional Swaddle Sack describes this function. (Compl. p. 13). ¶¶28, 32, 33 col. 17:7-12
the wing tip of each of the two wing portions extends above the shoulder line of the bodice portion The "Arms Up" design of the sleeves is alleged to position the infant's hands, and thus the tips of the sleeves, at or above the shoulder level. ¶¶23, 29 col. 17:12-14
the swaddling garment being tapered in at a waistline below each of the two wing portions The Accused Products are allegedly tapered at the waist line below the sleeves, which is purported to restrict the movement of the arms out of the sleeves. ¶35 col. 17:15-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "wing portion", as depicted in the patents with a distinct T-shape, can be construed to read on the "half-length sleeves" of the Accused Products. Defendant may argue its conventional sleeve construction falls outside the scope of the uniquely-shaped "wing portions" taught in the patent specifications.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint cites Defendant’s own marketing, which states the Accused Products provide "partial suppression" of the startle reflex (Compl. ¶31; p. 9). A key technical dispute may arise over whether this "partial suppression" meets the functional claim requirement to "suppress" the startle reflex, or if it describes a different and non-infringing function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wing portion" (’711 Patent, Cl. 1; ’268 Patent, Cl. 1) / "arm portion" (’517 Patent, Cl. 1)

    • Context and Importance: This is the central structural element of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the Accused Products' "sleeves" are found to be "wing portions" under the court's construction of the term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents define the term functionally as the part of the garment that encloses the arm and is large enough to retain it in a specific position (’268 Patent, col. 8:14-22). Plaintiff may argue that any structure performing this function is a "wing portion," regardless of its precise shape.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a wide, triangular, or wing-like shape that is distinct from a traditional garment sleeve (’268 Patent, FIG. 1A). The specification also describes the wings as forming a "T-like shape with the bodice portion," language that could support a construction limited to that specific geometry (’268 Patent, col. 9:24-27).

  • The Term: "suppress the startle reflex" (’711 Patent, Background; ’268 Patent, Title; ’517 Patent, Abstract)

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the primary technical benefit and function of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant's own marketing, as alleged in the complaint, characterizes its products as providing "partial suppression," raising a direct question of functional equivalence (Compl. ¶31).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the garment "swaddles infants by sufficiently restraining movement of the limbs to suppress the startle reflex," which suggests that complete suppression is not required and that a sufficient or partial degree of suppression falls within the claim's scope (’268 Patent, col. 16:13-15).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section discusses the need to "inhibit the movements associated with a full startle reflex" (’268 Patent, col. 1:57-59). Defendant may argue this language requires a higher degree of restraint than its products provide, and that "partial suppression" is a materially different and non-infringing function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents. The basis for willfulness regarding the ’711 Patent is alleged pre-suit knowledge dating back to at least August 30, 2018, when Defendant's predecessor, SwaddleDesigns, LLC, allegedly cited the ’711 patent in an Information Disclosure Statement filed with the USPTO during the prosecution of its own patent application (Compl. ¶¶46, 56). For the ’268 and ’517 Patents, willfulness is based on alleged actual notice provided via letters dated April 15, 2023, and November 24, 2025, respectively (Compl. ¶¶64, 72).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "wing portion," depicted in the patents as a unique, wide T-shaped structure, be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially more conventional "half-length sleeves" of the accused swaddles?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional infringement: does the accused products' advertised "partial suppression" of the startle reflex meet the functional requirement of the invention to "suppress the startle reflex," or does this represent a technically distinct and non-infringing level of performance?
  • A central question for willfulness and damages will be the impact of early knowledge: what is the legal significance of Defendant allegedly citing the lead asserted patent during its own patent prosecution years before the lawsuit was filed, and could this fact support a finding of objective recklessness for continued sales?