PTAB

IPR2025-01140

Evenflo Co Inc v. Baby Jogger LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Convertible Stroller
  • Brief Description: The ’771 patent discloses a stroller that can be converted from a single-seat configuration to a double-seat configuration, purportedly without increasing the stroller’s footprint. The invention centers on a frame with foldable support members that allow for multiple seating arrangements, including an inline, descending configuration for two seats.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rolicki - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Rolicki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rolicki (Patent 8,882,134).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground is asserted on the contingency that the ’771 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2008 priority date. Petitioner argued that key claim limitations were first disclosed in a 2016 provisional application, making Rolicki (filed in 2013) intervening prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Rolicki discloses all limitations of claims 1-15. For independent claim 1, Rolicki allegedly teaches a stroller convertible from a single to a double seat configuration without increasing its footprint. It discloses a frame with a handle portion, foldable support members extending in a parallel and substantially planar relationship, and mounting locations for a first (upper) seat and a second (lower) seat. The seat attachments are located at different vertical positions, with the second seat lower and closer to the front than the first, creating an inline, descending configuration.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference. Petitioner argued that any minor differences would have been obvious modifications. For elements like forward/backward facing seats, Petitioner contended these were well-known options in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the features disclosed in Rolicki, as it describes a complete and functional stroller system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gotting and Britax - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Gotting in view of Britax.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gotting (EP 090810) and Britax (DE 29810646).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground serves as an alternative if the ’771 patent’s 2008 priority date is upheld. Petitioner argued Gotting discloses the core elements of a convertible tandem stroller, and Britax provides teachings on a conventional folding mechanism that Gotting references but does not detail.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Gotting was alleged to disclose a stroller convertible between single and double seat configurations, with a frame, push bar (handle portion), and removable seats attachable at different heights to create an inline, descending arrangement. The foldable support members extend diagonally. To the extent Gotting’s disclosure of the folding mechanism is not explicit, Britax was cited for disclosing a nearly identical chassis with a clear pivot-based folding mechanism that divides the support members into upper and lower portions.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Gotting and Britax because they are analogous art from the same applicant (Britax-Teutonia) and share a substantially identical frame chassis. Gotting was described as an improvement on Britax, and a POSITA would look to Britax to understand the "conventional manner" of folding mentioned in Gotting, making the combination logical and predictable.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Britax’s specific folding joint to Gotting’s frame, as the frames are nearly identical, ensuring functional compatibility.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Offord ’341 and Offord ’797 - Claims 1-5 are obvious over Offord ’341 in view of Offord ’797.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Offord ’341 (Patent 8,672,341) and Offord ’797 (WO 2008/040797).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This is a second alternative ground. Petitioner argued Offord ’341 teaches a stroller that converts to a dual-seat configuration using a sub-frame, and Offord ’797, which is expressly referenced by ’341, teaches the key feature of making such a sub-frame reversible.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Offord ’341 was asserted to disclose a stroller with a frame, handle, and foldable support members. It uses removable "interface components" (a sub-frame) to add a second seat. Offord '797, by the same inventor, was cited for disclosing a similar sub-frame that can be rotated 180 degrees to reverse the orientation and height of the front and back seats, thereby achieving an inline descending configuration.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings because Offord ’341 explicitly references Offord ’797 and its "similar sub-frame assembly." A POSITA seeking to understand the full capabilities of the '341 sub-frame would consult '797 and be motivated to apply its disclosed reversibility to the similar structure in '341 to achieve the predictable result of a reversible seating configuration.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The application of a known technique (reversibility) from '797 to a similar device ('341) would yield predictable results, giving a POSITA a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “Handle Portion”: Petitioner argued this term should be construed as the “portion of frame coupled to the left and right upper tube support frame.” This construction was based on amendments and arguments the Patent Owner made during the prosecution of a parent patent (’543 patent) and positions taken in related district court litigation. This construction is critical to the priority date argument, as the concept of "upper tube support frames" distinct from the handle was allegedly new matter introduced in 2016.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Loss of Priority Date: A central contention of the petition is that the ’771 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2008 priority date. Petitioner argued that the Patent Owner, during prosecution, elected to pursue claims directed to an embodiment (Figs. 8A-8H) that was first disclosed in a 2016 provisional application. Key limitations, including the "handle portion" as construed and the phrase "substantially within a plane," allegedly lack written description support in the pre-2016 applications, breaking the priority chain and making art filed after 2008, such as Rolicki, valid intervening prior art.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’771 patent as unpatentable.