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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01122 counsel of record for petitioners Baby Generation, Inc. Evenflo Company, Inc. Monahan Products, LLC", "Baby Generation Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird patent litigation counsel", "Evenflo Company Inc. patent litigation counsel", "Monahan Products LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby patent litigation counsel", "Baby Jogger LLC patent litigation counsel", "IPR2025-01122 docket", "PTAB IPR2025-01122 counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case. However, the case information provided at the beginning is for an IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01122) where Baby Generation, Inc. et al. are the Petitioners, not the plaintiffs in a patent infringement case. BABY JOGGER, LLC is the Patent Owner in the IPR. The previous sections clarify that BABY JOGGER, LLC is the plaintiff in the district court patent infringement cases against Baby Generation, Evenflo, and Monahan Products.

Given the phrasing "representing the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case", I need to determine if the user is asking about the plaintiffs in the district court cases (Baby Jogger) or if they are mistakenly referring to the IPR petitioners as "plaintiffs." The case context provided (IPR2025-01122) specifically lists Baby Generation, Inc. et al. as "Plaintiff(s)" in the "Case" metadata, which is confusing given it's an IPR.

Given the prompt's initial "Case" metadata clearly states:
Plaintiff(s): Baby Generation, Inc.; Evenflo Company, Inc.; Monahan Products, LLC
Defendant(s): BABY JOGGER, LLC
And the case number is IPR2025-01122, it seems the prompt is asking for counsel representing Baby Generation, Evenflo, and Monahan Products in the IPR context, even if it uses the term "plaintiff(s)" which is more typical for district court. The previous sections also refer to these entities as "Petitioners" in the IPR. I will proceed with finding counsel for the Petitioners in IPR2025-01122.

I will search for counsel for Baby Generation, Evenflo, and Monahan Products in the context of IPR2025-01122.
I will also look for their counsel in the parallel district court cases to see if there's overlap or to understand their general patent litigation representation.
I need to be careful to identify the role (lead, of counsel, local, in-house) and note any relevant experience.

Let's refine the search strategy. I need to find the counsel of record for the Petitioners (Baby Generation, Evenflo, Monahan Products) in IPR2025-01122. PTAB dockets usually list attorneys.

Given the existing summary already states: "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." and that the IPR is "initiated by Baby Generation, Evenflo, and Monahan Products," I should focus on finding their counsel for the IPR (IPR2025-01122).

The search query "IPR2025-01122 counsel of record for petitioners Baby Generation, Inc. Evenflo Company, Inc. Monahan Products, LLC" is a good start. I will also try "PTAB IPR2025-01122 attorneys".
Then, for each identified attorney, I will search for their firm, office location, and relevant experience.The counsel of record representing the petitioners (Baby Generation, Inc., Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC) in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-01122, and likely in related parallel district court patent infringement cases, includes the following attorneys:

• Joseph W. Staley

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for Evenflo, and likely for co-petitioners in IPRs).
  • Firm: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience Note: Joseph Staley is explicitly named as lead counsel for Evenflo Company, Inc. in a related IPR proceeding (IPR involving U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231). Given the multiple, related IPRs and the joint nature of the petitioners, it is highly probable he serves in a similar capacity for Evenflo in IPR2025-01122 and potentially for the other co-petitioners in the IPR. His firm, Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, specializes in intellectual property law.

• Kevin M. Eckert

  • Role: Backup Counsel (for Evenflo, and likely for co-petitioners in IPRs).
  • Firm: Lando & Anastasi LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Kevin Eckert is designated as backup counsel for Evenflo Company, Inc. in a related IPR proceeding. His involvement suggests expertise in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. Lando & Anastasi LLP is an intellectual property law firm.

• Craig Smith

  • Role: Petitioner Counsel (identified in a related IPR).
  • Firm: Firm information for Craig Smith in the context of these IPRs is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, beyond his name being listed as "Petitioner Counsel" for IPR2025-01106.
  • Experience Note: Craig Smith is listed as petitioner counsel in IPR2025-01106, another related IPR involving Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. and Baby Jogger, LLC et al.. This indicates his involvement in representing the petitioners in their challenges against Baby Jogger's patents.

While a direct listing of counsel for IPR2025-01122 was not found, the designation of Joseph W. Staley and Kevin M. Eckert for Evenflo in a closely related IPR (which involves some of the same patents and parties), combined with the collective nature of the petitioners across these IPRs, strongly suggests their continued representation in IPR2025-01122. Craig Smith's involvement in another related IPR also points to his representation of the petitioners. The mandatory notices filed in such proceedings typically provide a complete list of counsel.

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.