Evenflo Co Inc v. Baby Jogger LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01100
• Patent #: 11,192,568
• Petitioner(s): Baby Generation, Inc., d/b/a Mockingbird; Evenflo Company, Inc.; and Monahan Products, LLC, d/b/a UPPAbaby
• Patent Owner(s): Baby Jogger, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-9 and 17-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Convertible Stroller
• Brief Description: The ’568 patent discloses a children's stroller that can be converted from a single-seat to a double-seat configuration. The invention centers on a stroller frame with multiple support tubes and the use of removable "seat attachment adapters" and "seat attachment housings" to couple a second seat at various vertical positions on the frame.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rolicki - Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are obvious over Rolicki

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rolicki (Patent 8,882,134).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Rolicki, an intervening prior art reference, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Rolicki teaches a convertible double stroller with upper and lower frame supports connected by pivot joints, allowing for folded and unfolded configurations. Petitioner argued that Rolicki explicitly discloses that its lower and upper frame supports are "substantially aligned or parallel" when erected, directly teaching the key "substantially parallel" limitation of independent claims 1 and 17. Furthermore, Rolicki's "seat mounts" and "housings" were argued to meet the claimed "seat attachment adapters" and "housings" for coupling seats at different vertical positions.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument focused on Rolicki's complete disclosure rendering the claims obvious. The challenge is contingent on establishing that the ’568 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2008 priority date, which would make the 2013-filed Rolicki a valid prior art reference.
  • Key Aspects: This ground's viability depends entirely on the success of Petitioner's argument that the challenged claims contain new matter from a 2016 provisional application, breaking the priority chain to the 2008 provisional.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Liao and Cheng - Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are obvious over Liao in view of Cheng

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Liao (Patent D593,459) and Cheng (Application # 2006/0071451).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Liao, a design patent with detailed engineering drawings, discloses the core structure of the claimed stroller. Liao shows a convertible stroller with upper tube support frames, front wheel support frames, and connectors for attaching upper and lower seats at different vertical positions. Petitioner asserted that, under the Patent Owner's own broad construction of "substantially parallel," Liao's frame members meet this limitation. The combination with Cheng addresses the folding functionality. Cheng discloses a stroller with a central folding mechanism that joins upper, front, and back wheel support frames, allowing the stroller to collapse.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Cheng’s folding mechanism with Liao’s stroller design to enhance portability and storage—a well-known and desirable feature in the art. Petitioner argued the structural similarity of the frames, particularly the central junction point, would make integrating Cheng's folding mechanism into Liao's design straightforward and predictable.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because it involved substituting one known component (Liao’s fixed coupling) with another (Cheng’s folding coupling) to achieve the predictable result of a collapsible frame.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that the same patent examiner, in a related application, later found that Liao alone anticipated claims similar to those in the ’568 patent, suggesting the original examination was flawed.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hsia and Hsia ’902 - Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are obvious over Hsia in view of Hsia ’902

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hsia (Patent 6,702,316) and Hsia ’902 (Application # 2003/0075902).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hsia teaches a stroller convertible to a dual-seat configuration using a "seat adapter frame" with legs that function as the claimed "seat attachment adapters." Hsia’s adapter couples a second car seat below the primary seat using "tubular holders" that serve as the claimed "housings." Petitioner argued Hsia discloses offset upper and front frame members that are "substantially parallel." The combination with Hsia ’902, which discloses a nearly identical stroller frame, was proposed to add an improved folding mechanism.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings of Hsia and Hsia ’902 to incorporate the latter's improved, one-handed folding mechanism into Hsia’s stroller. This modification would achieve the well-known benefit of making a bulky stroller easier to collapse, transport, and store.
  • Expectation of Success: Given the nearly identical frame structures, incorporating the folding mechanism from Hsia ’902 into Hsia would be a routine design modification with a predictable outcome.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "substantially parallel" (claims 1 and 17): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "the parallel relationship is not a strict relationship, such that some deviation from exactly parallel is permitted." This construction is based on the patent's intrinsic definition and the Patent Owner's own assertions in related district court litigation. This construction is critical because the allegedly parallel relationship between the upper tube and front wheel support frames was a key limitation added to overcome prior art during prosecution.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Loss of Priority Date: The central technical contention, which enables Ground 1, is that the ’568 patent is not entitled to its claimed December 4, 2008 priority date. Petitioner argued that multiple key limitations in the independent claims—including "seat attachment adapters," "seat attachment housings," specific vertical positioning, and the definition of "substantially parallel"—were new matter introduced for the first time in a 2016 Provisional Application. Because this new matter is necessary to support the claims, Petitioner contended the claims' effective filing date is no earlier than March 21, 2016, making the 2013-filed Rolicki reference available as intervening prior art.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 and 17-20 of Patent 11,192,568 as unpatentable.