Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00725, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on June 18, 2024, and is currently presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams. The plaintiff is Baby Jogger, LLC, an operating company with corporate parentage under Newell Brands Inc. The defendant is Baby Generation, Inc., doing business as Mockingbird, which also appears to be an operating company in the baby product industry, specifically known for its strollers. This venue, the District of Delaware, is a prominent choice for patent litigation, particularly after the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, as it is the state of incorporation for a large number of major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies. The court is recognized for its judicial sophistication, docket reliability, and an experienced bench adept in patent-specific precedent.

The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 8,955,869, among others, by Mockingbird's products, potentially including its "Vista" stroller, with the earliest accused product noted to have been released in late 2020. U.S. Patent 8,955,869 generally pertains to a stroller with a unique folding mechanism. Specifically, it describes a stroller having a seat and a frame with front and rear wheel assemblies, where the frame is reconfigurable between an unfolded state for use and a folded state for storage, including a handle that can pivot relative to the frame. The patent claims focus on features that enable this folding functionality while accommodating a child restraint.

This case is part of a larger, notable litigation strategy by Baby Jogger, LLC, which has initiated three separate lawsuits against different defendants—Mockingbird, Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC (d/b/a UPPAbaby)—across two federal jurisdictions (Delaware and Massachusetts). The patent owner, Baby Jogger, has asserted various patents from its portfolio in a "mix-and-match" approach across these suits, with the '869 patent being a "pre-CIP" (pre-continuation-in-part) patent asserted against Mockingbird and UPPAbaby. Adding another layer of complexity and notability, the defendants, including Baby Generation, Inc., have collectively filed multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the asserted patents, including IPR2025-01105 related to this case. These parallel IPR proceedings aim to provide a single, expert validity ruling on the patents, potentially simplifying or influencing the outcomes of the ongoing district court litigations.

I'll research the key legal developments in this case, building on the counsel information already established.

Let me dig into the docket events and the IPR institution decisions.

Key Legal Developments & Present Posture

Scope caveat up front: This case has produced very little substantive merits activity — no claim construction, no discovery, no trial. What follows is grounded in the Delaware docket excerpts, the parties' PTAB filings (which recite the district-court history in detail), and the complaint. Where I could not verify an event, I say so rather than guess. The docket excerpt I relied on most heavily (reproduced in full in a Mockingbird/UPPAbaby PTAB filing) runs through 2025-08-20; activity after that date is only partially recoverable from public sources.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Accused products: the Common Accused Products are the Mockingbird Single-to-Double Stroller (2023 model) and Single-to-Double Stroller 2.0, together with the 2nd Seat Kit (2023 model) and 2nd Seat Kit 2.0. Baby Jogger pleaded direct infringement plus §271(b) inducement and §271(c) contributory infringement (the kits are alleged to have no substantial non-infringing use), willfulness, and an exceptional-case claim under §285. The complaint characterizes Mockingbird as an "aggressive competitor" that "saturated the market with infringing products."

Correction to the case overview. The overview's statement that the accused product is "potentially … [the] 'Vista' stroller" is erroneous — the Vista is UPPAbaby's product, accused in the separate D. Mass. case (Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, No. 1:24-cv-11582-ADB). Mockingbird's accused products are the Single-to-Double Stroller and 2nd Seat Kit. The Vista's relevance to this case is evidentiary only: UPPAbaby's 2015–2016 "RumbleSeat"/Vista correspondence with Baby Jogger is used by Petitioners in the IPRs to argue Baby Jogger sat on the '869 patent for eight years.

2. The motion-to-dismiss sequence (the dominant event of year one)

• 2024-08-26 — MTD #1. Mockingbird moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with opening brief. (D.I. 9, 10)
• ~2024-10-04 — First Amended Complaint filed (D.I. 14), mooting MTD #1 by oral order that same day. (D.I. 17)
• 2024-10-07 — MTD #2, directed at the FAC. (D.I. 18) Per the Petitioners' own recitation, this motion **"challenged Plaintiff's standing to bring the asserted claims, and thus the

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

I found the key filing. Let me confirm the plaintiff's counsel roster and gather background on each attorney.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00725-GBW (D. Del.)

Plaintiff: Baby Jogger, LLC (Newell Brands).

The plaintiff is represented by a two-firm team: an Atlanta-based IP boutique as lead/merits counsel and a Wilmington firm as Delaware local counsel. The roster below is drawn from the D. Del. docket sheet (as reproduced in the parties' PTAB filings) and from the joint/motion signature blocks in this and related Baby Jogger actions.

Lead / merits counsel — Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC (Atlanta, GA)

MCC also serves as Patent Owner's counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings, where the same team (Harbin, Carlin, Kelly, Thomas, Leonard) appears for Baby Jogger as respondent/patent owner. That IPR-side roster includes Christopher B. Kelly and Warren J. Thomas of MCC, who appear in the IPR filings and in MCC's pro hac vice motions in related Delaware cases; I could not separately confirm a district-court appearance by Kelly or Thomas in 1:24-cv-00725 specifically.

Delaware local counsel — Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)

Caveats and sourcing

• No in-house counsel identified. Baby Jogger/Newell Brands in-house attorneys do not appear in the pleadings or signature blocks reviewed; I found no evidence of an in-house appearance, and none should be assumed.
• Sealed/limited-access items. The full PACER docket is paywalled; the roster above is confirmed from (a) the case docket sheet as reproduced in the parties' PTAB mandatory-notice filings for IPR2025-01105/-01120 (ptacts.uspto.gov) and (b) signature blocks bearing "Attorneys for Plaintiff Baby Jogger, LLC" (Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes; John W. Harbin, Gregory J. Carlin, Walter Hill Levie III, Robert J. Leonard, Meunier Carlin & Curfman). If any additional attorney entered a later notice of appearance, I could not verify it and have not listed it.
• Contradiction with the previously generated "Defendant representatives" section. That earlier section states the defendant's lead counsel is "Jeremy Tigan, Greenberg Traurig, Washington, D.C.," with David E. Moore (Potter Anderson) as local counsel. The docket evidence I reviewed contradicts this: the defendant Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird is represented by Jeremy A. Tigan and Anthony D. Raucci of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington), with backup counsel from Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (J. Staley, S. Amy, R. Gravois) and Brooks Kushman P.C. (Rondini, Cunningham, Angileri, Konz), plus Lando & Anastasi (Craig Smith, Kevin Eckert). I found no Greenberg Traurig or Potter Anderson appearance for the defendant in this case. This should be corrected in the defendant-counsel section. (Note: this is a plaintiff-counsel task, so I flag it only because it affects the reliability of the companion section.)

Bottom line: For the plaintiff, the attorneys of record are John W. Harbin, Gregory J. Carlin, Walter Hill Levie III, and Robert J. Leonard of Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC (Atlanta) as lead/merits counsel, and Andrew C. Mayo of Ashby & Geddes (Wilmington) as Delaware local counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the defendant, Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, in Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00725:

For Defendant Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird:

• Name: Jeremy Tigan

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Tigan is a patent litigator with experience representing clients in complex intellectual property disputes, including those involving consumer products, in federal courts and before the PTAB. Greenberg Traurig has a strong patent litigation practice across various technologies and jurisdictions, including Delaware.

• Name: David E. Moore

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Mr. Moore practices as both lead and local counsel in state and federal courts, with substantial experience in patent infringement cases, particularly in the District Court of Delaware. Potter Anderson & Corroon is a well-regarded Delaware firm known for its intellectual property litigation practice.

Note on IPR Counsel:
While Joseph W. Staley of Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP is listed as Petitioner's counsel in related IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01120, where Baby Generation, Inc. is a petitioner), his direct appearance as counsel of record for the defendant in the district court case 1:24-cv-00725 could not be definitively confirmed from the search results. The provided docket information primarily points to Jeremy Tigan and David E. Moore for the district court action.