Unified Patents v. Baby Jogger II LLC

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Baby Jogger II LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions by, among other strategies, challenging patent validity through IPRs. Baby Jogger II LLC, often referenced as Baby Jogger, LLC in IPR filings, is an operating company and a subsidiary of Newell Brands Inc., known for designing and manufacturing jogging and all-terrain strollers, bicycle trailers, and related infant and juvenile products.

The IPR, IPR2025-01095, challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231, titled "Stroller System." This patent broadly relates to a stroller system designed to support both a front and a rear stroller seat, incorporating a frame with a handle portion, front and rear wheel support portions, and a folding mechanism. A key technical feature at issue involves the handle and front wheel support portions being "substantially parallel" in the unfolded configuration. While the prompt states Unified Patents as the plaintiff, official PTAB records for IPR2025-01095 list Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby as the Petitioners. These petitioners are competitors of Baby Jogger, LLC, and are also defendants in related patent infringement lawsuits initiated by Baby Jogger, LLC, specifically concerning removable seat attachments and convertible single-to-double strollers.

The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, identified as IPR2025-01095. The petition was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural," which occurred on November 30, 2025. This status signifies a discretionary denial by the PTAB, meaning the Board declined to initiate a full review of the patent's validity based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the prior art arguments. The decision documents for this IPR indicate a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" and referenced the Board's decisions in Revvo and Tesla. This case is notable for highlighting the PTAB's stance on "gamesmanship," where petitioners in parallel district court litigation and IPR proceedings take inconsistent positions on claim construction, seeking narrower interpretations in district court to avoid infringement while arguing for broader constructions at the PTAB to facilitate invalidation. The IPR's outcome, therefore, underscores the PTAB's efforts to ensure consistency in claim interpretation across forums and prevent strategic maneuvering by petitioners.

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Baby Jogger II LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231, designated as IPR2025-01095. The IPR was ultimately not instituted for procedural reasons, largely stemming from new PTAB policies regarding discretionary denials.

While the case caption provided identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, docket entries for IPR2025-01095 explicitly name Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, along with Evenflo Company, Inc. and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, as the petitioners challenging Baby Jogger, LLC (the patent owner) for patent 11,505,231.

Here's a chronological overview of the key developments:

Parallel District Court Litigation (Mid-2024)

• Prior to the IPR filing, Baby Jogger, LLC initiated patent infringement lawsuits against the entities that later became the IPR petitioners. These included Baby Jogger, LLC v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, filed on June 18, 2024, in the District of Massachusetts (No. 1:24-cv-11582-ADB), and Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird and Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc., both filed on June 18, 2024, in the District of Delaware (No. 1:24-cv-00725 and No. 1:24-cv-00723, respectively). These parallel litigations set the stage for later arguments regarding claim construction consistency.

IPR Filing and Initial Pleadings (June 5, 2025)

• The Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01095, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,505,231, was filed by Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. on June 5, 2025.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance – Discretionary Denial Arguments (November 2025)

• The Patent Owner, Baby Jogger, LLC, opposed the institution of the IPR. A significant argument for denial, as evidenced by a "Petitioner's Briefing on Impact of Revvo and Tesla Decisions - IPR2025-01095" filed on November 18, 2025, was that the petitioners were advancing inconsistent claim construction positions in the district court litigation and the PTAB. This argument referenced recent PTAB decisions, such as Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Revvo Technologies Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies Inc., which addressed "gamesmanship" where petitioners adopted different claim constructions in different forums.

Claim Construction Context (Prior to IPR Decision)

• While the district court litigation between UPPAbaby and Baby Jogger had a Markman hearing, no claim construction ruling had been issued by the district court as of November 2025. In the IPR petition (IPR2025-01095), the petitioner adopted the patent owner's proposed construction for the term "substantially parallel," aiming to demonstrate unpatentability under this construction and avoid arguments of inconsistent positions. However, the patent owner contended that broader inconsistencies in claim construction still warranted denial.

USPTO Director's Policy Shift and Non-Institution (Late 2025 / Early 2026)

• Beginning in October 2025, USPTO Director John Squires personally took control of all IPR institution decisions, including both discretionary and merits-based determinations. This shift led to a significant increase in discretionary denials, often issued as summary notices without detailed reasoning.
• Outcome: IPR2025-01095 was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural." While the exact date of the non-institution decision is not specified in available public records, it likely occurred in late 2025 or early 2026, within the 12-month statutory window for an institution decision (which would be by June 5, 2026, for a petition filed on June 5, 2025). The "procedural" nature of the denial is consistent with the heightened focus on discretionary factors, such as inconsistent claim constructions, under the Director's new policies. This reflects a broader trend of declining IPR institution rates in late 2025 and early 2026, particularly for procedural reasons.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01095, the actual petitioners are Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, Evenflo Company, Inc., and Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, not Unified Patents, as indicated in the initial case metadata. Unified Patents is a patent-challenge membership organization that tracks and comments on PTAB cases, and while IPR2025-01095 is listed on their portal with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, the formal filings identify the aforementioned companies as petitioners. The IPR was ultimately met with a "Discretionary Denial" by the Director.

Based on the available documents, the following counsel represented the petitioners:

• Craig R. Smith

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Lando & Anastasi LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Relevant Experience Note: Craig R. Smith is a registered patent attorney involved in PTAB proceedings, representing petitioners such as UPPAbaby and Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird in challenges against Baby Jogger, LLC patents.

• Kevin M. Eckert

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Lando & Anastasi LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA (inferred from firm affiliation with Craig R. Smith)
  • Relevant Experience Note: Kevin M. Eckert serves as back-up counsel for the petitioners in this IPR proceeding.

It is important to note that while "Staley, Josephet al." was initially listed as "Petitioner Counsel" in a general overview, more detailed filings, particularly a "Power of Attorney for Patent Owner Baby Jogger, LLC", indicate that Joseph W. Staley, along with Robert D. Gravois and Scott P. Amy, are associated with Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC and represent the Patent Owner, Baby Jogger, LLC, not the petitioners. Therefore, only Craig R. Smith and Kevin M. Eckert are confirmed as counsel for the petitioners.

Counsel of record representing Baby Jogger II LLC (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01095 and related PTAB proceedings include attorneys from Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC. While a specific filing listing counsel for IPR2025-01095 was not directly found, an attorney from this firm is explicitly listed as counsel for Baby Jogger, LLC in related IPRs, such as IPR2025-01122 and IPR2025-01106, making their representation in IPR2025-01095 highly probable.

Here is the identified counsel for Baby Jogger II LLC:

• Christopher B. Kelly
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in PTAB proceedings)
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kelly is recognized as a leading IPR lawyer and patent prosecution strategist with extensive experience as lead counsel in IPR trials and Federal Circuit appeals. He joined Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC as a principal after a thirteen-year career at Alston & Bird.

Additional attorneys from Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC also appear as counsel for Baby Jogger, LLC in related IPR proceedings, suggesting they are part of the broader counsel team for the patent owner:

• Gregory J. Carlin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
  • Experience Note: As a managing partner at Meunier Carlin & Curfman, he is involved in the firm's reputation for PTAB trial work and prosecution.

• Warren J. Thomas

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC

• John W. Harbin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC

• Robert J. Leonard

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC

• Walter Hill Levie III

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC