BabyBjorn Ab v. Ergo Baby Carrier Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00110
• Patent #: 11,786,055
• Filed: October 29, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Babybjorn Ab
• Patent Owner(s): THE ERGO BABY CARRIER, INC.
• Challenged Claims: 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: ADJUSTABLE CHILD CARRIER
• Brief Description: The ’055 patent discloses an adjustable child carrier designed to support a child’s pelvis and thighs in an ergonomic position across a range of ages. The carrier features a body with a bucket seat, shoulder straps, an adjustable neck support, and adjustment areas that alter the carrier’s dimensions to accommodate children of various sizes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30 are anticipated by or obvious over the Synergy Manual, alone or in view of Lundh.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Synergy Manual (a 2007 BabyBjörn product manual) and Lundh (Application # 2018/0199730).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Synergy Manual discloses every limitation of the independent claims. The manual describes a soft baby carrier with a body forming a bucket seat, a foldable neck support, and shoulder straps with attachments. Critically, it features a "sliding buckle" on an adjustment label that directs the user to adjust the carrier based on the child's height. Petitioner asserted this sliding buckle, with its discrete height markings, is the claimed "thigh support adjuster" with a first, second, and third setting that adjusts the length of the carrier body. For claims requiring a "spread squat position" (e.g., claim 15), Petitioner contended the Synergy Manual’s illustrations show this configuration.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent the Synergy Manual was found not to explicitly teach the "spread squat position," Petitioner argued a POSITA would find it obvious to modify the carrier in view of Lundh or general knowledge. Lundh taught the advantages of a "frog-position" (i.e., spread-squat) and showed how to achieve it via thigh support. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sufficient fabric into the Synergy carrier's design to better support the thighs in this known, healthier position.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, as it involved applying well-known ergonomic principles to a standard fabric carrier design.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30 are anticipated by or obvious over Staten, alone or in view of Lundh.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Staten (WO 2006/116117) and Lundh (Application # 2018/0199730).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Staten, which discloses a harness-type baby carrier, anticipates the challenged claims. Staten’s carrier includes a body with a U-shaped infant seat, a neck support formed by upper flaps, and shoulder straps. The key adjustable feature is an "interface" on the carrier body with a column of pockets or slits that receive a tether. Petitioner mapped this tether-and-pocket system to the claimed "thigh support adjuster," arguing that the distinct pockets/slits constitute the claimed first, second, and third settings for adjusting the carrier's length and seat depth.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Alternatively, Petitioner argued it would be obvious to modify Staten in view of Lundh. Staten’s adjustment mechanism requires manually threading a tether through slits. Lundh discloses an adjustable bottom portion using a simpler hook-and-eye connection. A POSITA would combine Lundh’s more convenient adjustment mechanism with Staten’s carrier to achieve the obvious benefit of easier, potentially one-handed adjustment, which is highly desirable for parents.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that incorporating Lundh's adjustment mechanism into Staten would be a simple task for a POSITA, involving the substitution of one known adjustment component for another to improve usability.

Ground 3: Claims 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30 are anticipated by or obvious over Stomper-Rosam, alone or in view of Gray.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stomper-Rosam (Austrian Publication No. AT11620U2) and Gray (Application # 2008/0190972).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Stomper-Rosam’s adjustable baby and toddler carrier discloses all claim limitations. Stomper-Rosam teaches a carrier with a back panel forming a pouch (bucket seat) and a headrest (neck support). The carrier length is adjusted by a "bridge reduction feature" and drawstrings, which Petitioner mapped to the "thigh support adjuster." These adjustable features allow the carrier to be configured into different settings to accommodate a growing child.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): If Stomper-Rosam’s separate drawstrings were not considered a single adjuster, Petitioner argued it would be obvious to modify the design using Gray. Gray teaches a pouch system with retractable drawstrings coupled to a single pull tab. A POSITA would be motivated to combine Gray’s single pull-tab adjuster with Stomper-Rosam’s carrier to create a single adjustment point. This modification would provide the clear advantages of quicker, symmetrical, and one-handed adjustment of the thigh supports.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable integration of known adjustment mechanisms to achieve a more user-friendly product.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "at least one thigh support adjuster": Petitioner’s central argument was that this term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Petitioner argued that "adjuster" is a nonce word that fails to recite a sufficiently definite structure. The petition contended that the ’055 patent’s specification lacks a corresponding structure for a single "thigh support adjuster" coupled to both thigh supports. Instead, the specification discloses a pair of "base width adjusters" and a pair of "thigh width adjusters," neither of which performs the claimed function of adjusting the body length. Based on this, Petitioner argued the claims are indefinite but provided invalidity analysis under both a means-plus-function and a plain and ordinary meaning construction.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15, 19-24, and 28-30 of the ’055 patent as unpatentable.