Untitled case

In an active patent infringement lawsuit, Baby Jogger, LLC has accused Baby Generation, Inc., doing business as Mockingbird, of infringing U.S. Patent 9,403,550. The case, 1:24-cv-00725, was filed on March 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and is presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams. While the initial complaint filed by Baby Jogger, LLC included other patents (US 8,955,869 B2; S 11,192,568 B2; US 11,505,231 B1; US 11,878,729 B2), the scope of this summary focuses on the specified U.S. Patent 9,403,550. Baby Jogger, LLC is a well-known manufacturer of strollers and related juvenile products. Baby Generation, Inc., operating as Mockingbird, also produces strollers and baby gear, with their Mockingbird Single-to-Double Stroller being a prominent product. The core of the dispute centers on the alleged infringement by Mockingbird's products of technology covered by the '550 patent.

U.S. Patent 9,403,550, titled "Foldable stroller," describes a stroller with a frame that can be easily folded for compact storage and transport. Specifically, the patent details a stroller with front and rear wheel assemblies and a frame structure that allows for a folding operation, aimed at improving portability and convenience for users. This litigation is one of several patent infringement actions brought by Baby Jogger, LLC against other baby product manufacturers, including Evenflo Company, Inc. and Monahan Products, LLC (UPPAbaby), asserting similar patents in different jurisdictions or concurrently in Delaware.

The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced judiciary, established local rules, and a significant body of patent-specific precedent. While it no longer holds the absolute top spot in patent filings, it consistently ranks among the busiest, particularly for Hatch-Waxman (ANDA) cases, and maintains a high volume of general patent disputes. The case is notable for being part of a broader enforcement effort by Baby Jogger, LLC against competitors in the competitive baby stroller market. The involvement of multiple related lawsuits and inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging Baby Jogger's patents suggests a significant industry-wide dispute over stroller technology, highlighting the strategic importance of this intellectual property in the market. Indeed, Mockingbird, along with Evenflo and UPPAbaby, has initiated IPRs challenging the asserted patents, indicating a multi-front legal battle over the validity and infringement of Baby Jogger's intellectual property.

The patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00725, in the Delaware District Court, involves Plaintiff Baby Jogger, LLC, and Defendant Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, concerning US Patent 9403550. The case was filed on March 20, 2024, and remains active.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and current posture:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-03-20: The patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 1:24-cv-00725, was filed in the Delaware District Court.
• 2024-06-18: Plaintiff Baby Jogger, LLC filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement against Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, asserting US Patent 9403550 (among others) and including a demand for a jury trial.
• 2024-06-20: The Summons was executed, serving Defendant Baby Generation, Inc.
• 2024-07-08: Defendant Baby Generation, Inc. filed a Stipulation to Extend Time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint.
• 2024-07-10: The Court SO ORDERED the stipulation, extending the defendant's deadline to respond to August 26, 2024.
• Before 2025-10-01: Defendant Mockingbird filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was pending as of October 2025. At that time, Mockingbird had still not filed an Answer to the Complaint.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Before 2025-10-01: Defendant Mockingbird filed a Motion to Stay the litigation in the Delaware District Court, pending the outcome of parallel PTAB IPR proceedings. A ruling on this motion is not yet publicly available.
• 2025-03-19: A Stipulated Protective Order was signed by Judge Gregory B. Williams.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of May 2026, the Delaware District Court in Case No. 1:24-cv-00725 has not reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or issued a Markman order. However, a Markman hearing was held on July 17, 2025, in a related case involving Baby Jogger, LLC and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby (Case No. 1:24-cv-11582 in the District of Massachusetts), though no claim construction ruling has yet been issued in that case.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• As of October 2025, the Mockingbird case (1:24-cv-00725) was described as being in its very early stages, having been "dormant for over a year, with no scheduling order and no discovery conducted."
• 2026-02-13: A Scheduling Order was entered in the case, setting a deadline for the joinder of parties by October 16, 2026.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• Given the early stage of the litigation, no trial date has been set.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently active and in its early pre-trial stages, with a motion to dismiss pending and a recent scheduling order. There has been no final disposition, settlement, or appeal as of May 2026.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions have been filed against patents owned by Baby Jogger, LLC by entities including Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, indicating a coordinated defense strategy across multiple litigations.
• Specifically, Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. filed IPR2025-01095 on June 5, 2025. These IPR proceedings address complex priority date issues that are relevant to the patent family.
• The petitioners in the IPRs have argued against discretionary denial by the PTAB under the Fintiv factors, emphasizing that the parallel district court cases, including 1:24-cv-00725, are in their very early stages with no trial dates set. This suggests that the PTAB's decisions on institution for these IPRs are expected to occur before the district court cases would advance to discovery completion or trial. While specific IPRs cited in search results focus on other patents from the same family (e.g., US 11,878,729 and US 11,505,231), US Patent 9403550 is part of the broader patent portfolio asserted by Baby Jogger, LLC, and the PTAB proceedings discuss the overall impact on the multiple, early-stage district court cases.

It appears that Baby Jogger, LLC is the plaintiff in the patent infringement case 1:24-cv-00725 in the Delaware District Court. The defendant is identified as Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird.

As of the current date, the available search results do not explicitly identify the counsel of record representing Baby Jogger, LLC in this specific Delaware District Court case. While some search queries were made for "Alistair G. Milne" and "Kelly Farnan," their connection to the plaintiff in this particular case is not established in the provided snippets. Without specific docket entries or attorney appearance records for 1:24-cv-00725 in the Delaware District Court, the plaintiff's counsel cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for this case may not yet publicly disclose counsel, or may be sealed.

Based on available information, Baby Generation, Inc. (doing business as Mockingbird) is represented by attorneys from Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP and Lando & Anastasi LLP in related PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. While the exact counsel for the Delaware district court case (1:24-cv-00725) is not definitively stated in the immediate search results for that specific case, it is common for the same firms to handle both district court litigation and related IPRs for a client in patent disputes.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel from the IPRs, who are likely involved in the district court case:

1. Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP

• Attorney: Joseph W. Staley
  • Role: Petitioner Counsel (in IPRs), likely lead counsel or a key attorney in the district court case.
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Staley is involved in the IPRs challenging Baby Jogger's patents on behalf of Mockingbird, Evenflo, and UPPAbaby. His practice areas generally include intellectual property litigation.

2. Lando & Anastasi LLP

• Attorney: Kevin M. Eckert
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in IPRs), likely lead counsel or a key attorney in the district court case.
  • Office Location: Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Eckert is identified as lead counsel for Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird in IPR proceedings related to Baby Jogger's patents.

It's important to note that while these attorneys are actively representing Mockingbird in related PTAB proceedings, and one source directly links Jeremy A. Tigan to a filing on behalf of Baby Generation, Inc. in the district court case, a comprehensive list of counsel of record for the district court case itself would typically be found on the court's official PACER docket. The provided search results for the district court case (1:24-cv-00725) do mention "Jeremy A. Tigan" filing a stipulation to extend time for the defendant to respond to the complaint. However, a specific firm affiliation for Jeremy A. Tigan in relation to this case was not immediately available in the search results.

As of the last docket retrieval date in the search results (July 10, 2024, for Justia Dockets), Mockingbird had filed a stipulation to extend time to respond to the complaint, indicating that counsel has appeared in the district court case. The same docket entry indicates that a motion to dismiss remains pending, and Mockingbird has still not answered the complaint as of a December 2025 document from an IPR proceeding.