Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit, Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc., centers on alleged infringement in the competitive juvenile products market. The plaintiff, Baby Jogger, LLC, is an operating company known for designing and marketing infant and juvenile products, particularly strollers, and is credited with inventing the first jogging stroller. It is a subsidiary of Newell Brands Inc.. The defendant, Evenflo Company, Inc., is also a prominent operating company in the juvenile products industry, specializing in products such as car seats, strollers, and high chairs. Evenflo operates as a subsidiary of Goodbaby International Holdings Limited. The accused products are Evenflo's juvenile travel products, specifically inferred to be strollers or stroller components based on the nature of the asserted patent and the businesses of both parties.

The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682, titled "Removable seat attachment for a stroller." This patent describes a stroller designed to easily accommodate the addition or removal of a second seat. Its core innovation lies in specialized seat attachment housings on the stroller frame, which contain cavities for removable seat attachment adapters. These housings include manually operable door covers to secure the adapters, allowing a second seat to be attached. The patent also covers variations such as spring-biased door covers and through-holes in the cavities to prevent debris accumulation. While the case metadata lists only this patent, docket filings indicate that Baby Jogger also asserted other patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,192,568, 11,505,231, 11,577,771, and 11,878,729.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:24-cv-00723-GBW, and is assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. While the case is noted as "dormant" in the case metadata, docket entries show activity, including a stipulation to extend time in July 2024. Furthermore, parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against related Baby Jogger patents, including US 11,577,771, reference this district court case as being in its "early stages" with a Rule 26(f) conference not yet held. The District of Delaware is a frequent venue for patent litigation, favored by plaintiffs for its experienced judiciary and efficient case management, ranking as one of the top districts for patent filings nationwide. The case is notable as it is part of a broader IP dispute within the juvenile products industry, evidenced by multiple IPR challenges filed by Evenflo and other competitors (such as Mockingbird and UPPAbaby) against Baby Jogger's patent portfolio, signaling a multi-front battle over key product features like convertible stroller designs.

The Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc. case in the District of Delaware has seen several legal developments since its filing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Baby Jogger, LLC filed its complaint against Evenflo Company, Inc. on June 18, 2024, alleging patent infringement. The initial complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682. However, docket filings indicate that Baby Jogger later asserted additional patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 11,192,568, 11,505,231, 11,577,771, and 11,878,729.

Evenflo Company, Inc. was served on June 20, 2024, with its answer initially due on July 11, 2024. On July 8, 2024, Evenflo filed a stipulation to extend the time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint, which was granted by Judge Gregory B. Williams on July 10, 2024, extending the deadline to August 26, 2024. Evenflo subsequently filed a motion to stay the case. Baby Jogger opposed this motion. It is unclear from the available information if Evenflo has filed an answer or counterclaims, or if the motion to stay has been ruled upon.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Evenflo filed a motion to stay the district court litigation, likely pending the outcome of related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Baby Jogger opposed this motion. The district court case, along with a related case against Mockingbird (1:24-cv-00725-GBW), was noted to be in its "early stages," with no Rule 26(f) conference yet held in the Evenflo litigation at the time of some PTAB filings in late 2025. This suggests that the motion to stay may still be pending or was granted, contributing to the case's current dormant status.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

As of late 2025, the Baby Jogger v. Evenflo case had not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage. While a related case involving Baby Jogger and UPPAbaby in Massachusetts (1:24-cv-11582-ADB) had a Markman hearing in July 2025, no claim construction ruling had been issued by that district court at that time.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

There are multiple parallel IPR proceedings initiated by Evenflo and other companies (Mockingbird and UPPAbaby) against Baby Jogger's patents, including those asserted in this district court case.

Specifically for US Patent No. 11,731,682, Evenflo Company, Inc. filed IPR2025-01122.

For US Patent No. 11,577,771, Evenflo Company, Inc. filed IPR2025-01140. This IPR was filed on June 17, 2025, and instituted on December 1, 2025. The institution decision for IPR2025-01140 noted the early stages of the parallel district court litigation (1:24-cv-00723-GBW) and the likelihood that a Final Written Decision from the PTAB would precede a resolution on the merits in that litigation. The petition challenged the patent's priority date and included a Sotera stipulation, which weighed against discretionary denial.

Other related IPRs filed by Evenflo, Mockingbird, and UPPAbaby against Baby Jogger patents include:

• IPR2025-01095 (challenging US 11,505,231) filed by Mockingbird, Evenflo, and UPPAbaby.
• IPR2025-01100 (challenging US 11,192,568) filed by Mockingbird, Evenflo, and UPPAbaby.
• IPR2025-01120 (challenging US 11,878,729) filed by Mockingbird, Evenflo, and UPPAbaby.

These IPRs challenge the validity of various Baby Jogger patents, with some petitions arguing against the patent owner's reliance on earlier priority dates. The fragmented litigation strategy across multiple lawsuits and jurisdictions, with varying overlap in asserted patents and claims, has been highlighted as a reason favoring centralized review at the PTAB.

Present Posture

The case remains in the early stages and is currently dormant, likely due to the pending motion to stay and the ongoing IPR proceedings at the PTAB. The outcome of the IPRs, particularly those challenging the asserted patents, will likely significantly impact the progression and ultimate disposition of the district court litigation.

The plaintiff, Baby Jogger, LLC, is represented by counsel from the following firms:

Lead Counsel

• John V. Gorman - Partner, Leader of Global Intellectual Property Disputes Practice, and Head of the Philadelphia and Wilmington IP practice groups.
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience: Mr. Gorman is a seasoned first-chair litigator with nearly 30 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial disputes, including numerous patent infringement and commercial disputes in Delaware courts. He has litigated cases across a broad range of industries, including consumer and industrial products, and has secured multi-million dollar jury verdicts in design patent litigation.

Local Counsel

• Andrew C. Mayo - Attorney

  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Ashby & Geddes is a Delaware-based firm often serving as local counsel in complex litigation.

• Gregory J. Carlin - Attorney

  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Experience: The firm's practice areas include intellectual property litigation.

• John W. Harbin - Attorney

  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Experience: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC frequently handles patent litigation matters.

• Walter Hill Levie III - Attorney

  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Experience: The firm is known for its intellectual property practice.

• Robert J. Leonard - Attorney

  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Experience: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC is active in patent infringement cases.

It is worth noting that while Paul Hastings was previously mentioned in general Baby Jogger litigation context in the provided user input, current search results for this specific case do not directly link them as counsel of record for Baby Jogger, LLC in Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc.. The above attorneys are identified through a motion to stay filed by Evenflo, which explicitly listed Baby Jogger's counsel for service.

Evenflo Company, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent and commercial litigators.

Lead Counsel

• Jeffrey T. Castellano - Partner, DLA Piper LLP (US)

  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Mr. Castellano has over 15 years of experience litigating patent cases as lead counsel in courts and agencies across the country, with a significant portion of his career spent in Delaware courts. His practice covers various technologies, including pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, and medical devices. He also handles trade secret and patent licensing disputes and is a former president of the Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. He has also moderated panels on the intersection of district court and PTAB practice.

• Amy R. Lucas - Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Ms. Lucas is a seasoned litigator and trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes disputes, including intellectual property matters, contract, copyright, and trademark. She has represented influential companies across various sectors, including pharmaceuticals and consumer products, and has a strong track record of success from pre-suit strategy through trial and appeal.

• Daniel M. Silver - Partner, McCarter & English, LLP

  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Mr. Silver is a litigation and trial attorney with a practice spanning intellectual property and other high-stakes disputes. He frequently represents clients in the pharmaceutical industry and often serves as Delaware counsel for national law firms. He has experience in patent litigation and has published on tips for trying patent infringement cases.

• Lauren D. Michals - Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP

  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Ms. Michals represents clients in complex litigation, including product liability, toxic tort, and commercial matters. While her primary focus appears to be in areas like food, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals, her experience in complex litigation suggests a capacity for managing the intricacies of patent infringement cases.

• Benjamin R. Nagin - Co-head of global Antitrust and Competition group, Sidley Austin LLP

  • Office Location: New York, NY.
  • Experience: Mr. Nagin represents clients in complex antitrust, class action, and commercial litigation matters. While his primary focus is antitrust, his extensive trial experience in federal and state courts and his leadership in high-profile disputes demonstrate a strong litigation background applicable to complex patent cases.

It's important to note that Evenflo is also involved in several parallel IPR proceedings at the PTAB, where different counsel may be representing them. For example, Joseph W. Staley of Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP is listed as lead counsel for Evenflo Company, Inc. in IPR2025-01095, which challenges US Patent No. 11,505,231. Kevin M. Eckert of Lando & Anastasi LLP is also listed as backup counsel in that IPR. While these attorneys are confirmed for the IPRs, their involvement in the district court case is not explicitly stated in the provided search results.