Baby Generation, Inc. et al. v. BABY JOGGER, LLC

This case, IPR2025-01122, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682. The Petitioners are Baby Generation, Inc. (doing business as Mockingbird), Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC (doing business as UPPAbaby), all prominent operating companies in the juvenile products industry, specializing in the design, manufacturing, and sale of items such as strollers, car seats, and related accessories. The Patent Owner is BABY JOGGER, LLC, a well-known designer and marketer of premium jogging and all-terrain strollers and related accessories, acquired by Newell Brands in 2014. The challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682, generally relates to stroller technology, as evidenced by the business operations of both the patent owner and the petitioners, who are competitors in the baby gear market. While a precise one-line technical sketch of the patent's claims without direct access to the patent document is difficult, the context of related IPRs and infringement actions suggests it likely pertains to specific features or designs of strollers, potentially concerning convertible seats or frame configurations.

The procedural posture places this case squarely before the PTAB, where the petitioners are seeking to invalidate claims of Patent No. 11,731,682. The IPR was filed in 2025 and notably instituted on December 1, 2025. This institution decision was among the first under the direct review of USPTO Director John Squires, who assumed personal control over all institution decisions in October 2025. The institution was issued as a summary notice, a new procedural approach by Director Squires, and indicated that the petitioners had included standard "Sotera stipulations" in their petition.

This IPR is particularly notable due to its direct linkage to ongoing patent infringement litigation in district courts, where BABY JOGGER, LLC has asserted related patents against Baby Generation, Evenflo, and Monahan Products, LLC. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the strength of BABY JOGGER's patent portfolio and the competitive landscape within the juvenile products market. Furthermore, its institution under Director Squires, following an initial period of numerous discretionary denials, highlights evolving PTAB practices and the weight given to factors such as parallel litigation and petitioner stipulations in determining whether to institute an IPR.

Baby Generation, Inc. and its co-petitioners (Evenflo Company, Inc. and Monahan Products, LLC) are involved in parallel patent infringement litigation with BABY JOGGER, LLC across multiple district courts. While IPR2025-01122 specifically concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682, the identified district court cases and other related IPRs indicate a broader dispute over a portfolio of patents related to stroller technology.

Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes in the patent infringement litigation, presented chronologically:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• June 18, 2024: BABY JOGGER, LLC initiated separate patent infringement lawsuits against each of the IPR petitioners:
  • Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-00723) in the District of Delaware.
  • Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird (Case No. 1:24-cv-00725) in the District of Delaware.
  • Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby (Case No. 1:24-cv-11582) in the District of Massachusetts.
    The asserted patents in these lawsuits include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,955,869; 9,403,550; 11,192,568; 11,505,231; and 11,878,729. U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682, the patent at issue in IPR2025-01122, is specifically asserted against Evenflo.
• December 2, 2024: A scheduling order was issued in the Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby case.
• February 14, 2025: UPPAbaby served its invalidity contentions in the Massachusetts case.
• March 28, 2025: UPPAbaby filed its opening claim construction brief in the Massachusetts case.
• May 29, 2025: A class action complaint was filed against Monahan Products, LLC, alleging defects in child car seats. This is a separate, non-patent matter but indicates ongoing litigation activity involving one of the petitioners.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motions to Stay Pending IPR: Both Evenflo and Mockingbird (Baby Generation, Inc.) filed motions to stay their respective district court cases.
  • As of early December 2025, the Delaware cases against Evenflo and Mockingbird were "dormant for over a year," with Mockingbird's motion to dismiss still pending and no Rule 26 conference held for Evenflo.
• Motion for Summary Judgment (Equitable Estoppel): In the Massachusetts case (Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby), UPPAbaby filed a motion for summary judgment based on equitable estoppel, arguing that Baby Jogger's eight years of inaction constituted misleading conduct.
  • The court, presided over by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, DENIED UPPAbaby's motion for summary judgment, finding that UPPAbaby failed to establish both misleading conduct and reasonable reliance.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• July 17, 2025: A Markman hearing was held in the Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby case in the District of Massachusetts.
• As of November 2025, the district court in the UPPAbaby litigation had not yet issued a claim construction ruling, despite the Markman hearing having taken place.
• The petitioners in IPR2025-01095 (a related IPR challenging a different patent) stated that they are not pursuing broader interpretations of claims at the PTAB while pursuing narrower constructions in litigation to avoid infringement, addressing potential inconsistencies in claim construction positions.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect on Litigation:

• The IPR2025-01122 proceeding, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682, was instituted on December 1, 2025, through a summary notice from USPTO Director John Squires.
• This IPR is one of several filed by the petitioners against Baby Jogger's patents. For example, IPR2025-01095 was filed on June 5, 2025, and IPR2025-01106 was filed on June 19, 2025.
• The petitioners included standard "Sotera stipulations" in their IPR petition, which is a commitment not to pursue in parallel district court proceedings the same grounds of invalidity as raised in the IPR or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised. This stipulation is highly relevant in the PTAB's discretionary denial framework.
• The existence of these parallel IPRs is a significant factor in the district court litigation, as petitioners have argued that the PTAB is the best forum to resolve complex priority issues that "pervade this patent family," thereby promoting efficiency and consistency across the multiple lawsuits.
• The institution of IPRs, especially under Director Squires' new framework, aims to serve as a "litigation alternative" rather than a "parallel litigation amplifier." Director Squires' recent precedential decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. (IPR2026-00097) in May 2026 further emphasized that petitioners seeking to relitigate validity questions already decided or strategically fumbled in district court face materially elevated risk of discretionary denial. Inconsistent claim construction positions between district court and PTAB proceedings without clear explanation would also lead to scrutiny. In the instant case, the IPR was instituted on December 1, 2025, with a summary notice, indicating the PTAB found the petition met the requirements for review, likely considering the Sotera stipulations.

5. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• As of May 19, 2026, the district court cases against Evenflo and Mockingbird in Delaware appear to be in early stages or dormant.
• The Massachusetts case against UPPAbaby has progressed further, including a Markman hearing and a denied motion for summary judgment, but no final claim construction ruling has been issued, nor have trial dates been calendared.
• The IPR2025-01122 (along with related IPRs) is currently pending at the PTAB, having been instituted on December 1, 2025. The outcome of these IPRs could significantly influence the trajectory and potential settlement or disposition of the parallel district court litigations.

I'll research counsel for the petitioners (the "plaintiff" side in this IPR) across the PTAB docket and related proceedings.

Good leads. Now let me pull the actual IPR2025-01122 petition/docket and the district court appearances to confirm who is of record where.

Let me confirm the IPR2025-01122-specific counsel listing and the district court appearances for each petitioner.

Counsel of Record — Petitioner Side (IPR2025‑01122)

Threshold correction: The case caption supplied in the metadata ("Baby Generation, Inc. et al. v. BABY JOGGER, LLC") does not match the Board's actual caption for this proceeding. IPR2025‑01122 is captioned Evenflo Company, Inc. v. Baby Jogger, LLC et al. and Evenflo is the sole petitioner of record in it; the three-party joint petitions are the companion proceedings (e.g., IPR2025‑01095, ‑0100, ‑0111/‑0112, ‑0120). This is corroborated by (a) the IP Verse docket entry listing petitioner as "EVENFLO" (ipverse.greyb.com case page), and (b) Patent Owner's own filings, which treat IPR2025‑01122 (the '682 patent) and IPR2025‑01140 (the '771 patent) as the two Evenflo-only proceedings in the family (PO Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel, Mar. 17, 2026). The third-party petitioners (Mockingbird, UPPAbaby) are real parties in interest in the joint petitions, not named petitioners here.

---

A. PTAB counsel for the petitioner — Evenflo Company, Inc. (Brooks Kushman P.C.)

All four are registered practitioners at Brooks Kushman P.C.'s Royal Oak, Michigan office (150 W. Second St., Suite 400N, Royal Oak, MI 48067‑3846; (248) 358‑4400). They are the counsel served by Patent Owner in this proceeding, and service runs to the 01122‑specific mailbox GBBL0112IPR@brookskushman.com.

Source for the listing and service address: the certificate of service and signature blocks in Patent Owner's March 17, 2026 motion (linked above), which serves "counsel for Petitioner" at exactly these four Brooks Kushman addresses plus the GBBL0112IPR@ and GBBL0111IPR@ service mailboxes.

B. District court counsel for the same petitioner (for cross‑reference)

• Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI) — Frank A. Angileri, Thomas W. Cunningham, John P. Rondini, Francesca M. Cusumano, Abdulai Rashid — counsel for Defendant Evenflo in Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Co., No. 1:24‑cv‑00723‑GBW (D. Del.).
• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE) — Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) and Ben Yenerall (#7132) — Delaware local counsel for Evenflo; both appear on Evenflo's September 5, 2025 motion to stay pending the IPRs. (D. Del. stay motion via PTACTS)

C. Co‑petitioner counsel in the companion joint IPRs (not of record in 01122)

For completeness — and because these names will appear in the family's papers:

• Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (Atlanta, GA; Boca Raton, FL) — Joseph W. Staley (Reg. 60,732, lead), Robert D. Gravois (Reg. 67,224), Scott P. Amy (pro hac vice). Staley is the lead signatory on the joint petitions and on UPPAbaby's power of attorney in IPR2025‑01120.
• Lando & Anastasi LLP (Boston, MA) — Craig R. Smith (Reg. 45,113) and Kevin M. Eckert (Reg. 80,096), listed as lead/back‑up on the joint petition filings.

---

Gaps and caveats (not verified)

• In‑house counsel: I found no PTAB appearance, power of attorney, or mandatory notice identifying Evenflo (or Newell Brands-side) in‑house counsel for this proceeding. None should be assumed.
• Mockingbird's Delaware local counsel and UPPAbaby's Massachusetts counsel in the parallel district court cases were not confirmed in the sources I could reach; the Perilla Knox and Lando & Anastasi names above are PTAB-side, from the joint petitions, not district court appearances.
• Individual attorney bios (e.g., specific first‑chair IPR trials, prior notable cases) could not be verified against firm website pages within this search; the registration numbers and roles above are taken directly from filed papers rather than from biographies.

Two contradictions with the previously generated sections — flagged

1. Patent Owner's lead counsel has changed. The earlier "Defendant representatives" section names Christopher B. Kelly as lead counsel for Baby Jogger. Per Patent Owner's March 17, 2026 motion, Warren J. Thomas (Reg. 70,581) was substituted as lead counsel and Kelly was withdrawn from IPR2025‑01122 and IPR2025‑01140; Gregory J. Carlin, John W. Harbin, Robert J. Leonard, and Walter Hill Levie III remain as back‑up, with Samuel Fritz added. That section should be updated.
2. Proceeding status. The metadata says "Pending – Instituted" (consistent with the Dec. 1, 2025 institution), but one aggregator table (IP Verse, "last updated Oct. 5, 2026") labels IPR2025‑01122 as "Final Written Decision." A FWD by early October 2026 would precede the statutory 12‑month deadline (≈Dec. 1, 2026), so I treat that label as unverified/possibly a data error; I could not locate a FWD document. I did not find any termination, settlement, or adverse judgment in this docket.

The counsel of record representing BABY JOGGER, LLC (referred to as the "defendant" in the case metadata, but functionally the "Patent Owner" in this IPR proceeding IPR2025-01122) includes attorneys from Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC. This firm is appointed to transact all business for BABY JOGGER, LLC in IPR2025-01122 and several other related IPR proceedings.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Christopher Kelly

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel or key counsel for Patent Owner.
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Identified as "Respondent Counsel" for Baby Jogger, LLC in closely related IPRs (IPR2025-01095 and IPR2025-01106) involving the same petitioners, indicating expertise in PTAB proceedings.

• John W. Harbin

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner (not a registered practitioner).
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Appointed by Baby Jogger, LLC to transact business in IPR2025-01122 and other related IPRs.

• Robert J. Leonard

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner (not a registered practitioner).
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Appointed by Baby Jogger, LLC to transact business in IPR2025-01122 and other related IPRs.

• Gregory J. Carlin

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner.
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Included in the certificate of service for Patent Owner's documents in related IPR proceedings, indicating active involvement in representing Baby Jogger.

• Walter Hill Levie III

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner.
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Included in the certificate of service for Patent Owner's documents in related IPR proceedings, suggesting active involvement in the case.

The firm Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC (MCC) has been explicitly appointed by Baby Jogger, LLC for representation across multiple inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-01122.