Baby Jogger, LLC v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby

Baby Jogger, LLC, an operating company and a long-standing designer and manufacturer of jogging and all-terrain strollers and other infant/juvenile products, initiated patent infringement litigation against Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby. Baby Jogger, founded in 1984 and acquired by Newell Rubbermaid in 2014, specializes in producing versatile strollers designed for active parents. UPPAbaby, founded in 2006, is also an operating company that designs and manufactures premium baby gear, including strollers, car seats, and accessories, and is based in Hingham, Massachusetts. The dispute centers on UPPAbaby's "Vista" and "RumbleSeat" products, including the recently released RumbleSeat V3, which Baby Jogger alleges infringe its patents related to convertible single-to-double strollers.

The asserted patents in this case 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. 11,192,568 is generally directed to a convertible stroller system that can adapt from a single occupancy to a double occupancy configuration, allowing for various seating arrangements. The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under case number 1:24-cv-11582, with Judge Allison Dale Burroughs presiding. The case was filed on June 18, 2024, and has advanced to the Markman stage, with a claim construction hearing held on July 17, 2025. The District of Massachusetts is a relevant venue as it is UPPAbaby's home state.

This litigation is notable as it represents a clash between two prominent operating companies in the competitive baby gear market. Furthermore, UPPAbaby, alongside other competitors like Evenflo and Mockingbird, has challenged Baby Jogger's patents through multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including IPR2025-01106 and IPR2025-01105. This indicates a broader, multi-front patent dispute across the industry, with Baby Jogger having filed separate lawsuits against these competitors in different jurisdictions (Massachusetts and Delaware) and asserting a "mix-and-match" of patents against each.

This patent infringement litigation, Baby Jogger, LLC v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, Case No. 1:24-cv-11582, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 18, 2024. The case involves U.S. Patent Nos. 8,955,869, 9,403,550, 11,192,568, 11,505,231, and 11,878,729. The case is currently active.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Baby Jogger, LLC filed its initial complaint on June 18, 2024.
• Amended Complaint: After UPPAbaby moved to dismiss the initial complaint, Baby Jogger filed an Amended Complaint on September 27, 2024.
• Answer and Counterclaims: UPPAbaby filed its Answer and Counterclaims to Baby Jogger's First Amended Complaint. Baby Jogger subsequently filed its Answer to UPPAbaby's Counterclaims.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion for Summary Judgment (Denied): UPPAbaby filed a motion for summary judgment based on equitable estoppel on December 20, 2024. Baby Jogger opposed this motion on January 24, 2025, and UPPAbaby filed a reply on February 7, 2025. The court, presided over by Judge Burroughs, denied UPPAbaby's motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2025. The basis for the motion was UPPAbaby's assertion that Baby Jogger's inaction since 2016, following pre-suit correspondence in December 2015 and March 2016, constituted equitable estoppel. However, the court found that the record did not compel an inference that Baby Jogger had abandoned its claim.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Claim Construction Hearing: A Markman hearing was held on July 17, 2025.
• Claim Construction Ruling: As of November 18, 2025, the district court had not yet issued a claim construction ruling following the Markman hearing.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Preliminary Infringement Contentions: Baby Jogger served its Preliminary Infringement Contentions on UPPAbaby on December 20, 2024.
• Invalidity Contentions: UPPAbaby served its Invalidity Contentions on Baby Jogger by February 14, 2025.
• First Set of Interrogatories: UPPAbaby served its First Set of Interrogatories, to which Baby Jogger provided objections and responses.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• As of the current date, no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have been reported. The case is still in the pre-trial phase, and no trial date has been calendared.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active. There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed by UPPAbaby and other competitors (Evenflo and Mockingbird) against Baby Jogger's asserted patents. These filings indicate a multi-front patent dispute.

• IPR2025-01095: Filed by Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. against Baby Jogger, LLC et al. on June 5, 2025, involving U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231. In November 2025 filings, Patent Owner Baby Jogger argued for discretionary denial of institution, citing inconsistent claim construction positions taken by UPPAbaby in the district court and before the PTAB, similar to the Revvo and Tesla decisions. Specifically, UPPAbaby argued in district court that the term "substantially parallel" in the '231 and '568 patents was indefinite, while in the IPR petition, it presented illustrations of the relationship being found in prior art. UPPAbaby also advanced different constructions for "connector portion," "handle portion," and "adjacent" in district court compared to the PTAB.
• IPR2025-01105: Filed by Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby et al. against Baby Jogger, LLC et al. on June 19, 2025, involving U.S. Patent No. 8,955,869. On October 30, 2025, an Institution Decision was denied, and on November 19, 2025, a Director Discretionary Decision to Deny was issued for this IPR. This indicates that the PTAB declined to institute review for the '869 patent.
• IPR2025-01106: Filed by Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby et al. against Baby Jogger, LLC et al. on June 19, 2025, involving U.S. Patent No. 9,403,550. An Institution Decision was denied on October 30, 2025, and a Director Discretionary Decision to Deny was issued on November 19, 2025, for this IPR.
• Other IPRs related to Baby Jogger's patent family and other competitors include IPR2025-01100 (U.S. Patent No. 11,192,568), IPR2025-01120 (U.S. Patent No. 11,878,729), IPR2025-01122 (U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682), and IPR2025-01140 (U.S. Patent No. 11,577,771).

The PTAB decisions to deny institution in IPR2025-01105 and IPR2025-01106 mean that the validity of the '869 and '550 patents will likely continue to be litigated in the district court. The arguments regarding inconsistent claim constructions raised in IPR2025-01095 also highlight a strategic aspect of the multi-forum litigation.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel for this case. Let me run several searches in parallel.

I have strong docket leads. Let me confirm the plaintiff's counsel firms and the apparent error in the earlier "Defendant representatives" section.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Baby Jogger, LLC

Baby Jogger is represented by a two-firm team: an Atlanta-based patent boutique as lead patent counsel and a Boston firm acting as local counsel. Here is what the docket and contemporaneous reporting support.

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

The pro hac vice motions (ECF Nos. 16–19, filed Sept. 5, 2024; granted Sept. 6, 2024, ECF No. 20) and the subsequent notices of appearance (ECF Nos. 24–26, Sept. 12, 2024) identify the following:

The same Meunier Carlin team (Harbin, Carlin, Levie, Leonard) appears for Baby Jogger in the parallel Delaware suit Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Co., No. 1:24-cv-00723-GBW, per the Delaware docket excerpt reproduced in the PTAB exhibit set.

Local counsel — Cozen O'Connor (Boston, MA office)

• Wendy Kennedy Venoit — Member, Cozen O'Connor, Boston. Identified on the Docket Navigator/Justia docket entry as counsel representing Baby Jogger and as the filer of Baby Jogger's initial Corporate Disclosure Statement (ECF No. 2, June 18, 2024). A 2025 Massachusetts Super Lawyer in the firm's construction practice.
• Michael M. Filbin — Notice of Appearance on behalf of Baby Jogger (ECF No. 15, July 12, 2024). Cozen O'Connor's Boston office lists a "Michael Filbin" as an associate; caveat: the firm bio pages describe a construction-law practice, and I could not independently confirm that the Cozen "Michael Filbin" is the identical individual to the "Michael M. Filbin" on the docket — the surname match and Boston venue make it the likely but not certain identification.

Role characterization (hedged): The Boston attorneys appear to function as local/co-counsel (Massachusetts-based appearances and corporate filings), while Meunier Carlin & Curfman supplies the substantive patent-litigation lead. The docket does not expressly designate a "lead trial counsel."

⚠️ Flag: contradiction with the earlier "Defendant representatives" section

The previously generated section listing Nixon Peabody LLP (David A. Bassett, Jason B. Gosselin) and Choate Hall & Stewart LLP (Robert V. Cerino) as UPPAbaby's counsel appears to be unsupported/incorrect. Nothing in the docket, the VitalLaw summary, or the PTAB filings corroborates those names. The verified defendant-side counsel of record is:

• Lando & Anastasi LLP, Boston (60 State Street): Craig R. Smith (lead), Kevin M. Eckert (pro hac vice, admitted July 2024), Andrea B. Reed — per ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14 and VitalLaw's identification of "Craig R. Smith (Lando & Anastasi, LLP) for Monahan Products, LLC."
• PTAB counsel for UPPAbaby: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (Joseph W. Staley, Robert D. Gravois, Scott P. Amy) and Brooks Kushman P.C. (John P. Rondini, Thomas W. Cunningham, Frank A. Angileri, Kyle G. Konz).

I recommend the defendant-representatives section be corrected or removed.

Sources

• Justia docket, Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, No. 1:24-cv-11582 (D. Mass.) (docket last retrieved June 24, 2025) — listing ECF Nos. 2, 15, 16–20, 24–26.
• D. Mass. civil docket header (1:24-cv-11582-ADB) as reproduced in PTAB Exhibit set for IPR2025-01100/01120.
• IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Mass.: Equitable estoppel not shown in stroller patent dispute" (June 26, 2025) — attributing argument to Gregory Joseph Carlin (Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC) for Baby Jogger.
• PTAB filings in IPR2025-01100 (Evenflo/Mockingbird/UPPAbaby v. Baby Jogger) showing Meunier Carlin & Curfman as Baby Jogger's back-up counsel (mcciplaw.com), and Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt / Brooks Kushman / Lando & Anastasi for petitioners.
• Delaware docket excerpt, Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Co., No. 1:24-cv-00723-GBW, reproduced as a PTAB exhibit (Aug. 29, 2024 pro hac vice entries for Harbin, Levie, Leonard).

Unconfirmed items I did not verify: the street address of Meunier Carlin & Curfman's Atlanta office; whether Kelly and Thomas have entered a district-court appearance in this case; and the exact identity of Michael M. Filbin (Cozen O'Connor). No filings in this case appear to be sealed as to counsel identity.

I'll research defendant's counsel of record for Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby across docket sources, firm websites, and legal press.

I have the core docket data. Let me verify the individual attorneys' roles and experience, check for any additional district-court appearances, and look for in-house counsel.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby

Bottom line: In the district court case, UPPAbaby is represented exclusively by Lando & Anastasi, LLP (Boston), a Boston IP boutique. Three L&A attorneys have entered appearances: Craig R. Smith (first chair / lead trial counsel), Andrea B. Reed, and Kevin M. Eckert. In the parallel PTAB proceedings, UPPAbaby is represented by an expanded team that adds Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP and Brooks Kushman P.C. as co-counsel. I found no appearance by in-house counsel.

---

1. District Court counsel — D. Mass. No. 1:24-cv-11582-ADB

District-court docket anchors: ECF 7 (extension motion, Smith) · ECF 8 (corporate disclosure, Smith) · ECF 9 (Smith appearance) · ECF 10 (Reed appearance) · ECF 12–14 (Eckert PHV and appearance) · ECF 27 (UPPAbaby's motion to dismiss) · ECF 41 (UPPAbaby's MSJ on equitable estoppel) · ECF 48 (Baby Jogger's opposition). L&A is Boston-based, so the three L&A attorneys satisfy the D. Mass. local-counsel requirement directly; no separate "local counsel" firm appears.

---

2. PTAB / IPR counsel for UPPAbaby (parallel proceedings)

UPPAbaby's IPR team is broader and includes two additional firms. Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) mandatory notices (e.g., in IPR2025-01120 re the '729 patent, signed June 6, 2025) and the updated mandatory notices in IPR2025-01095:

The IPR filings are captioned with three co-petitioners — Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird; Evenflo Company, Inc.; and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby — which explains the multi-firm roster. IPR databases list "Petitioner Counsel: Smith, Craig et al." for UPPAbaby's IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-01106, covering the '550 patent), confirming Smith as the UPPAbaby-side coordinator.

---

3. In-house counsel

Not identified. I found no in-house attorney for Monahan Products/UPPAbaby entering an appearance or identified in the filings I could retrieve. The only UPPAbaby employee surfaced in the record was Trung Phung (quoted in L&A's Chambers USA 2024 announcement regarding IP protection), who is not identified there as an attorney. I did not locate a general counsel name — this should be treated as an open item rather than a null finding.

---

4. Caveats, sourcing limits, and one flagged contradiction

• Docket currency: The Justia docket for this case was "last retrieved on June 24, 2025." Any appearances, withdrawals, or pro hac vice admissions after that date (including anything tied to the July 17, 2025 Markman hearing and later briefing) may not be reflected. The docket should be re-pulled from PACER before relying on the roster.
• Transcript evidence: The "we represent UPPAbaby" Markman transcript excerpt and the Smith/Reed argument allocation come from PTAB exhibits hosted on USPTO PTACTS; they corroborate the docket but are not the docket itself.
• ⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section. That section states Baby Jogger is represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. (Frank P. Porcelli, Jonathan E. Singer, Jeremy J. Regan) and Nelson Mullins (Robert C. Collins, Jr.). The contemporaneous record does not support that. The filings themselves (signature blocks on the Amended Complaint, Baby Jogger's Answer to Counterclaims, and the infringement contentions) and the Justia docket show plaintiff's counsel as Cozen O'Connor (Wendy K. Venoit, Michael M. Filbin — Boston) and Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC (John W. Harbin, Gregory J. Carlin, Walter Hill Levie III, Robert J. Leonard — Atlanta). VitalLaw's report of the June 24, 2025 estoppel ruling likewise names "Gregory Joseph Carlin (Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC) for Baby Jogger." I'd treat the Fish & Richardson/Nelson Mullins attribution as an error (a possible source of confusion: defendant's lead counsel Craig R. Smith spent years at Fish & Richardson before joining L&A, and L&A itself was reported in 2010 as hiring him away from Fish). Recommend correcting the plaintiff section.