US 10730543

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including USPTO records and any CAFC/litigation activity.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation/PTAB activity and the specific claim language.

Let me find the exact claim text for the '543 patent and check for any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 activity.

US 10,730,543 B2 — Summary

Note on identifiers: I searched specifically for 10730543 / 10,730,543. One unrelated hit is worth flagging: an EP record (EP‑2442755‑B1) carried application number 10730543.5, which is a European application number, not this US patent grant. It is a different identifier and is excluded below.

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent text and USPTO/PTAB records)

Priority chain (as recited in the patent's "Related Applications"): continuation of 15/225,326 (filed Aug. 1, 2016, pub. US 2016/0339940, now abandoned); which claims priority to provisional 62/311,224 (Mar. 21, 2016) and is a CIP of 14/597,420 (now US 9,403,550, filed Jan. 15, 2015); which claims priority to 14/261,558 (now US 8,955,869, filed Apr. 25, 2014); which claims priority to 12/631,375 (filed Dec. 4, 2009); which claims priority to provisional 61/119,920 (Dec. 4, 2008).
Minor discrepancy noted: the D. Del. complaint describes 14/261,558 as filed April 25, 2014, while an IPR petition refers to April 24, 2014. I flag this rather than reconcile it.

2. Abstract

"A stroller is provided with the ability to removably couple and decouple a seat from the stroller as needed. The stroller can include a stroller frame. The stroller can also include one or more front wheels … and one or more rear wheels … The stroller can also include a first seat coupled to the stroller frame. The stroller can include first and second seat attachment housings. Each of the seat attachment housings can include a cavity for receiving a corresponding one of the first and second seat attachment adapters. Each of the seat attachment housings can also include a door or cover to prevent access to the respective cavity when not in use. The seat attachment adapters can be coupled to the respective seat attachment housings and a second seat can be coupled to the seat attachment adapters."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

Uncertainty disclosure: I was able to confirm that the '543 patent has 13 claims (18 drawing sheets) from the USPTO/PTAB record (the cover page reproduced as EX1008 in IPR2025‑01095). I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claim text for claim 1 or any second independent claim from the sources returned in my searches, so the following is a reconstruction based on (a) the granted abstract, (b) the specification, and (c) the nearly identical claim language prosecuted in the immediate parent, application 15/225,326. Treat the wording below as approximate, not quoted.

Likely independent claim 1 — a "stroller" (apparatus):

• A stroller frame, a plurality of wheels (front wheels and rear wheels), and a first seat coupled to the frame;
• a first seat attachment housing disposed along a first portion of the frame, and a second seat attachment housing disposed along a second portion of the frame, each housing used for removably coupling a second seat to the frame;
• each housing includes a cavity for receiving a corresponding seat attachment adapter, and a door/cover movable between an open configuration and a closed configuration to selectively block access to the cavity (the patent describes both a sliding door with a finger tab and rails, and an alternative spring-biased rotating door hinged to the housing);
• a first removable seat attachment adapter and a second removable seat attachment adapter, each configured to be removably coupled to its respective housing when the corresponding door is open; and
• the second seat is coupled to the two adapters.

Key functional/adornment details described in the specification that typically appear in dependent claims:

• the adapter has a spring-loaded latching tab captured by a tab receiver in the cavity, released by a tab release button acting through a guide wire (single-hand decoupling);
• a keyed cavity/adapter perimeter so the adapter inserts in only one orientation;
• a stop collar on the adapter that abuts the housing to limit insertion depth;
• stop flanges inside the cavity abutting the adapter's first end;
• the housing bottom is open to the environment (through-hole) to drain liquids;
• the adapters position the second seat forward of and vertically below the first seat (inline descending), substantially over the front wheels, keeping the stroller's center of gravity between front and rear wheels.

If a second independent claim exists, it most plausibly recites either (i) the seat attachment housing itself (cavity + door + stop flanges/latching features), or (ii) the removable seat attachment adapter (first end, stop collar, spring-loaded latching tab, release button). I could not confirm which — flag as uncertain.

4. Litigation and PTAB status (grounded in records returned)

• Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" with a Darts‑IP first-worldwide-family-litigation link (family 57325932).
• District court (patent family, not necessarily the '543 itself):
  • Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, No. 1:24‑cv‑00725‑GBW (D. Del.)
  • Baby Jogger, LLC v. Evenflo Company, Inc., No. 1:24‑cv‑00723‑GBW (D. Del.)
  • Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, No. 1:24‑cv‑11582‑ADB (D. Mass.)
• PTAB IPRs (challenging related family patents, not the '543): IPR2025‑01095 ('231), IPR2025‑01100 ('568), IPR2025‑01105 ('869), IPR2025‑01106 ('550), IPR2025‑01120 ('729), IPR2025‑01122 ('682), IPR2025‑01140 ('771).
  • The '543 appears in IPR2025‑01095 only as Petitioner's Exhibit EX1008 (a prior-art/related reference), not as the challenged patent.
• CAFC 2026: I found no Federal Circuit docket in 2026 for US 10,730,543. My search did not surface any CAFC appeal naming this patent, so I cannot confirm any pending 2026 appellate proceeding. Treat this as "none found" rather than "none exists."

5. Confidence / uncertainty summary

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventors, assignees, application number, filing date, issue date, abstract, 13 claims/18 sheets, examiner, priority chain, IPR/litigation contexts listed.
• Lower confidence: the exact granted wording and count of independent claims of the '543 patent — I could not retrieve verbatim claim text, so the claim overview is reconstructed from the abstract, specification, and the parent application 15/225,326.
• Not confirmed: any CAFC 2026 appeal involving this patent.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,730,543.

Let me search more specifically for litigation asserting the '543 patent itself.

Let me dig deeper to confirm whether the '543 patent has ever been asserted in district court, and check the IPR context.

Bottom Line

Based on my searches, I found no district‑court (or ITC) litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 10,730,543 ("the '543 patent") has been asserted as a patent‑in‑suit. The '543 patent appears in the record only in PTAB proceedings — and even there it is cited as a prior‑art exhibit, not as a challenged patent.

I want to be explicit about the confidence level: my searches surfaced the Darts‑ip/Google "Family has litigation" flag for the '543 patent's family (family 57325932), which reflects lawsuits asserting sibling patents, not the '543 patent itself. I did not locate any complaint, counterclaim, or ITC filing naming the '543 patent as an asserted claim. If such a case exists, it did not surface in my searches.

1. Litigation directly asserting the '543 patent

None found. No plaintiff/defendant pair, jurisdiction, or case number can be reported for the '543 patent as an asserted patent, because no such assertion appears in the sources I searched.

2. Where the '543 patent actually appears: PTAB prior art

The '543 patent is used as an exhibit (prior art) by challengers of other Baby Jogger patents in the same family:

Sources:

• IPR2025‑01095 docket/exhibit list (Petitioner Exhibit 1008: U.S. Patent No. 10,730,543): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01095/Baby_Generation_Inc._d-b-a_Mockingbird_v._Baby_Jogger_LLC/
• Exhibit 1008 copy (the '543 patent as filed): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01095/Baby_Generation_Inc._d-b-a_Mockingbird/docs/06-06-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1008-US_Patent_No_10,730,543.pdf
• IPR2025‑01140 petition papers listing EX1008 = U.S. Patent No. 10,730,543.

Note these are inter partes reviews — administrative proceedings before the PTAB, not litigation in district court — and the '543 patent is not the subject patent in either. (Should these IPRs be relevant to your question, both appear to have ended or are trending toward discretionary denial; IPR2025‑01095 was terminated December 1, 2025 on discretionary‑denial grounds.)

3. Related family litigation (does NOT assert the '543 patent)

The '543 patent shares the same specification/family as the following asserted patents, and these are the cases behind the "family has litigation" flag. None of them asserts the '543 patent:

Sources: Petitioners' Second Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2025‑01095 (listing the three district‑court litigations as related matters): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01095/Baby_Generation_Inc._d-b-a_Mockingbird_v._Baby_Jogger_LLC/docs/09-26-2025-Petitioner/Notice__Updated_Mandatory_Notice-12-Petitioners_Updated_Mandatory_Notices.pdf ; Baby Jogger First Amended Complaint (D. Mass. 1:24‑cv‑11582‑ADB); Finnegan D. Mass. update (equitable‑estoppel MSJ denied).

Separately, an older and unrelated case — Baby Jogger v. Britax, E.D. Va. No. 2:12‑cv‑00452 — concerned the '548 and '431 patents and predates the '543 patent; it is not related to the '543 patent.

4. Methodology / caveats

• I searched for the exact identifiers "10730543" and "10,730,543" together with litigation, complaint, asserted, infringement, and defendant terms, plus the PTAB/docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, PTAB dockets, CourtListener, Justia) and district‑court complaint PDFs.
• I could not access a dedicated litigation database such as Unified Patents' litigation portal or PACER directly in this session; results rely on indexed public documents. Therefore, while I found no assertion of the '543 patent, I cannot rule out a low‑visibility assertion (e.g., a recently filed complaint not yet indexed, or a counterclaim).
• Per the operating rules, all identifiers are reproduced exactly as found. If you want, I can run targeted searches against a specific docket aggregator (e.g., a specific PACER district) or Darts‑ip family 57325932 to double‑confirm the absence of any '543 assertion.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 10,730,543 B2

"Removable seat attachment for a stroller" · App. No. 15/912,901 · Filed 2018-03-06 · Granted 2020-08-04 · Assignee: Baby Jogger II, LLC (assignment recorded 2026-01-23) · Adjusted expiration 2030-03-09

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 10,730,543 — the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web search corroborated that rather than contradicting it: the entire 2025 IPR wave against the Baby Jogger stroller family targets the sibling/continuation patents ('869, '550, '568, '231, '729, '682, '771), not the '543 patent.

Breakdown by status: active — 0; claims invalidated — 0; claims sustained — 0; settled — 0; institution denied — 0.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the '543 patent is completely untested at the PTAB. This is not a "hardened after surviving IPRs" patent and it is not a "claims already canceled" patent — it is an unreviewed patent whose entire 13-claim set is live, presumptively valid, and carries no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone. The favorable consequence for a defendant is that every § 102/§ 103 patent-and-printed-publication ground remains open; the unfavorable consequence is that you get no free ride on prior work product and no PTAB-driven stay leverage from this patent's own docket. Because the '543 claims sit at the tail of a large continuation chain with a 2008 priority date, the real fight over this patent will be a written-description / priority fight (whether the claim limitations actually get the 12/04/2008 benefit), which is exactly the theory the sibling-patent petitioners have already road-tested.

Proceedings on US 10,730,543

None. There is nothing to report at claim level, no panel to name, no FWD, no appeal, no settlement — and I will not manufacture one.

Related proceedings — sibling patents in the same family (flagged, NOT on '543)

These matter to a '543 defendant because they share the '543 specification (the '543 application is the parent of the '568 and '682 applications), they involve the same three competitors, and their discretionary-denial reasoning and priority-date arguments are directly transplantable to the '543 claims. Sources below are third-party dockets/aggregators and PTAB filings, not ODP.

Notes and caveats on the table:

• The patent↔proceeding mapping and the "discretionary denial" outcomes for IPR2025-01095 and IPR2025-01120 are corroborated by two independent docket sources; the full six-proceeding list is recited verbatim in Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices in the family proceedings.
• The "Trial Instituted" status for IPR2025-01122 and IPR2025-01140 comes from a third-party aggregator. I could not verify those institution decisions against a primary PTAB document, so treat those two rows as unconfirmed.
• Grounds in the sibling petitions are § 103 obviousness, typically combining Dotsey (US 2009/0127810), Zehfuss (US 2010/0140902 — Baby Jogger's own earlier publication), Van Dijk (US 2007/0194545), Schaaf (US 6,209,892), Liao (US D593,459), Britton (US 6,767,028), Rolicki, Cheng (US 7,475,900), and Hsia. The petitioners' lead priority argument is that the later continuations are not entitled to the 2008 chain for the "substantially parallel" frame limitation, which drags the applicants' own 2010 Zehfuss publication into the prior art. That same argument is available against the '543 claims, which recite the frame plus the seat-attachment-housing / cavity / door structure.
• Every panel outcome in this family so far has been a director-level discretionary denial (Fintiv/§ 314(a) and § 325(d)-style reasoning, plus a heavy dose of § 325(d) "same art already before the Examiner" argument by Baby Jogger), not a merits win for either side. None of those denials is a merits finding, and none binds the Board on a future '543 petition.

Key evidence that '543 was not itself challenged: the US 10,730,543 patent appears in the sibling proceedings only as family context — including as Exhibit 1008 in IPR2025-01095 — and Baby Jogger's own § 325(d) briefing lists "'543" merely as one of the family members in which the same Examiner considered the Liao reference.
Sources: IPR2025-01095 docket, IPR2025-01120 docket, IPR2025-01095 petition, U.S. Pat. 11,505,231, IPR2025-01100 case summary, Baby Jogger PTAB portfolio view, PTAB E2E.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For US 10,730,543 the answer is uniform: 13 claims, none canceled, none sustained, all UNTESTED. No IPR, PGR, or CBM has ever been instituted against this patent, so there is no claim-level disposition to import into a litigation. Practically, that means every claim — the independent claim covering the stroller with first and second seat-attachment housings, each having a cavity receiving a seat-attachment adapter, plus the door/cover for the cavity when not in use, and all dependents — is fully available to the patent owner until a defendant invalidates it in district court or the Board. Contrast this with the family's district-court posture: the 2024 complaints asserted '568, '231, '729, and '682 (per the sibling petitions' § 315(b) tables), not '543. If a demand letter or complaint you received cites the '543 patent, that is a newer, less-tested assertion vector — and its claims are narrower (housing/cavity/door) than the frame-level claims the competitors have been attacking.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches per-petitioner and per-patent. Because no IPR was filed on the '543 patent, no estoppel exists against any party on the '543 claims, and Evenflo's / Mockingbird's / UPPAbaby's Sotera-style stipulations in the family IPRs — promising not to pursue in district court "the specific invalidity grounds raised in [that IPR petition], or ... any other invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in [that IPR petition]" — are, on their face, scoped to the grounds and claims of that petition. Read strictly, they do not bar § 102/§ 103 printed-publication grounds against '543. But this is the one place to be careful: a patent owner will argue the stipulation's "could have been reasonably raised" language sweeps in the whole stroller-family prior-art universe, and the same three defendants have already publicly committed to family-wide invalidity positions in their district court contentions. If you are Evenflo, Mockingbird, UPPAbaby, or in privity with them, get a written estoppel-scope opinion before you build a '543 invalidity case on Liao/Cheng/Schaaf/Dotsey; if you are an unrelated defendant, you have a clean slate.

Pattern signals. Three competitors — Evenflo, Mockingbird (Baby Generation), and UPPAbaby (Monahan) — coordinated a seven-petition, same-week June 2025 offensive against the family, with joint real-parties-in-interest and identical counsel teams, so this is a coordinated defensive aggregator in all but name (no Unified Patents involvement that I could find). The pattern to note is that the registrations so far are near-uniform discretionary denials, driven by (i) the advanced parallel district court proceedings (D. Mass. Markman heard 2025-07-17; D. Del. cases trailing) and (ii) § 325(d) — the same Liao/Cheng art was before the Examiner during prosecution of the family, including the '543 application. Baby Jogger has been an aggressive discretionary-denial advocate and has not needed to defend a single claim on the merits in this family. There is no reported PTAB appeal or Federal Circuit appeal in this family (nothing to appeal yet at claim level), and no reported settlement.

Recommended next steps

1. Say it plainly in your invalidity contentions: there is no PTAB record on the '543 patent. No IPR FWD, no institution decision, no estoppel. You are not inheriting anyone's work product, and you cannot point the court to a canceled claim.
2. Time the petition, if you file one. The '543 patent's adjusted expiration is 2030-03-09, and the § 315(b) one-year clock runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. A petition filed today would be decided on a statutory 1-year trial track — institution decision within ~6 months of filing, FWD within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)).
3. Lead with the priority/written-description attack, not just art. The sibling petitions argue the later continuations do not get the 2008 priority chain, which converts Baby Jogger's own 2010 Zehfuss publication (US 2010/0140902) into § 102(a)(1) art. Replicate that argument against the '543 housing/cavity/door claims, and check whether the office records for App. No. 15/912,901 contain a priority-defeating amendment or a Cheng/Liao rejection history (the '869 family file history shows claim 1 was canceled over Cheng before allowance — the same Examiner handled the '543 application).
4. Attack the two narrow structural hooks of the '543 claims directly. Claims are directed to (a) adapter-receiving cavities in housings on the frame and (b) a door/cover over the cavity (sliding in one embodiment, spring-biased rotating in the other). Non-infringement may be cheaper than invalidity: a competitor whose second-seat adapter mounts to an exposed, uncovered receiver on the front wheel support frame arguably misses the cavity-plus-door limitation entirely.
5. Do not file a follow-on petition without a General Plastic story. If you are a co-defendant of Evenflo/Mockingbird/UPPAbaby, expect the Board to weigh the relationship between petitioners and the year-long gap between the June 2025 family filings and your '543 petition.
6. Watch the two instituted sibling trials (IPR2025-01122 and IPR2025-01140), if the "Trial Instituted" status holds. Those are the first proceedings in this family that will produce merits briefing on the same specification. FWDs would be due roughly 12 months after institution; any written-description or priority ruling there is directly transferable to a '543 challenge a year later.
7. Serve the right entity. The '543 patent was reassigned from Baby Jogger, LLC to Baby Jogger II, LLC on 2026-01-23. Confirm the current owner and any real-party-in-interest chain before filing.

Verification note: I could not open a primary-source PTAB document establishing that no '543 petition was ever filed, so this conclusion rests on (i) the USPTO ODP structured block (which is definitive as of its ingest) and (ii) the absence of any '543 docket in the family-wide mandatory notices, dockets, and petition tables I retrieved. If a '543 petition was filed in late 2025 or in 2026 and has not yet been indexed, this analysis would change — re-run ODP and PTAB E2E before relying on it in a brief.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 10730543 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig into the assignment records, the 2026 transfer, and the litigation backdrop.

⚠️ Methodological note up front: I was able to complete only a limited number of live lookups, and I could not render the USPTO Assignment Center record page itself (the tool returns search-engine snapshots, not the paginated Assignment Center UI). Below I report only what I can ground in a citable source. Where a reel/frame or recording correspondent is not confirmed, I say so rather than invent one. Reel/frame 73567/0738 is the one assignment identifier I can source directly.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note (qualified): Zehfuss was both a named inventor and a Baby Jogger officer. Baby Jogger affirmatively admitted in its answer in Baby Jogger v. Monahan Products (D. Mass. 1:24-cv-11582) that Zehfuss "is no longer employed by Baby Jogger." That is an executive/inventor departure, but it is not evidence of a mass inventor exodus preceding a portfolio fire-sale — the other three inventors' tenures are unknown to me, and the patent is a 2018 continuation whose priority reaches back to 2008. I flag it, but it does not, standing alone, support an NPE thesis.

Original assignee

Baby Jogger, LLC — assignee on the face of US 10,730,543 B2 (Richmond, VA; current principal-place-of-business stated in litigation as 6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, GA 30328). Title on the face of the patent lists Baby Jogger, LLC as applicant/assignee.

• Product embodying the claims: Yes. Baby Jogger's City Select / City Select 2 strollers are virtually marked with US 10,730,543 (alongside US 8,955,869, US 9,403,550, US 9,944,305, US 11,192,568, US 11,505,231) on Newell's patent-marking page (newellbrands.com/dA/.../BabyJogger_Patent Marking.pdf). Baby Jogger also stated in the D. Mass. case that it began virtual marking via newellbrands.com/patents at least as early as November 2023.
• Primary line of business: Designer/seller of premium baby strollers and accessories (founded 1984; the company that invented the jogging stroller). An operating company in commerce, not a licensing vehicle.
• Corporate status / current chain:
  • Owned by The Riverside Company (PE) via Baby Jogger Holdings, Inc.
  • 2014-12-16 — Newell Rubbermaid closed its ~$210M acquisition of Baby Jogger Holdings from Riverside.
  • 2016-04-15 — Newell Rubbermaid/Jarden combination closed, entity renamed Newell Brands Inc.; Baby Jogger admitted in litigation that it "is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Newell Brands Inc."
  • 2026-01-23 — Reassignment to Baby Jogger II, LLC (see timeline), which appears aligned with a Newell-family restructuring rather than a third-party sale (see NPE signals).

Assignment timeline

Caveat on reel/frame completeness. I could confirm only one reel/frame (73567/0738). For the 2012 Dynamic Brands→Baby Jogger assignment and the 2018 inventor→Baby Jogger assignment, the execution/recording dates and parties are documented, but the underlying reel/frame and recording correspondent were not retrievable in this session and are left blank rather than guessed. Verify at the Assignment Center link at the bottom.

• 2008-12-04 / filed same day — Reel/Frame not captured (provisional, not separately recorded)

  • Conveyance: (provisional application 61/119,920 — no assignment recorded)
  • Assignor: n/a
  • Assignee: Dynamic Brands / Baby Jogger (the pre-2012 owner of the stroller business)
  • Correspondent: n/a
  • Context: Priority document for the entire family; title later flowed to Baby Jogger via the 2012 Asset Purchase/Assignment (see next entry).

• 2012-04-20 (executed) / recorded date not confirmed — Reel/Frame not captured

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment and Assumption Agreement incorporating a separate Purchase Agreement)
  • Assignor: Dynamic Brands
  • Assignee: Baby Jogger (Baby Jogger, LLC)
  • Correspondent: not captured; not retrievable this session
  • Context: Acquisition — conveyance of "all of [Dynamic Brands'] right, title and interest in … the patent applications and issued patents set forth on Exhibit B," expressly including provisional 61/119,920 and application 12/631,375. Per Baby Jogger's D. Mass. complaint, Dynamic Brands also warranted cooperation "in ensuring [Baby Jogger's] ownership … are properly recorded." US 10,730,543 is a continuation of '375 and therefore takes title through this chain.

• 2018-03-06 (executed and recorded) — Reel/Frame not captured

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Zehfuss, Mark; Lee, Jon Hee; Roe, Megan; Simpson, Stacy Noel (the four named inventors)
  • Assignee: Baby Jogger, LLC
  • Correspondent: not captured. (Note: the attorney/firm of record on the face of the patent for prosecution is Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP — this is the prosecution correspondent, which is not necessarily the same as the assignment-recording correspondent.)
  • Context: Internal — standard inventor-to-company assignment on filing of continuation application 15/912,901.

• 2026-01-23 (executed and recorded) — Reel/Frame 73567/0738

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Baby Jogger, LLC
  • Assignee: Baby Jogger II, LLC
  • Correspondent: not captured in the source I retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization / intra-group transfer. The reel/frame is cited in Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2025-01140 (US 11,577,771), filed 2026-03-17, which states Baby Jogger, LLC "has assigned its entire right, title, and interest in and to the challenged patent (among others) to Baby Jogger II, LLC. See … Reel/Frame 73567/0738," and names the real parties-in-interest as "Baby Jogger II, LLC and Newell Brands Inc." ⚠️ Direct-source caution: that citation is made in a proceeding about the '771 patent; it states the reel/frame covers the '771 patent "among others," but I could not independently confirm from the Assignment Center that '543 is itemized on 73567/0738. Treat the reel/frame↔'543 linkage as strongly indicated but not directly verified.

Are there Assignment Center records for this patent? Yes — at minimum the 2018-03-06 inventor→Baby Jogger and the 2026-01-23 Baby Jogger→Baby Jogger II records exist. I could not pull their individual reel/frame numbers or recording correspondents directly.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10730543
    2008 : Provisional filed by Dynamic Brands
    2009 : Application 12 631375 filed
    2012 : Assigned to Baby Jogger LLC
    2014 : Baby Jogger bought by Newell Rubbermaid
    2016 : Newell Jarden merger forms Newell Brands
    2018 : Continuation filed by Baby Jogger LLC
    2020 : Patent granted
    2024 : Baby Jogger sues UPPAbaby Evenflo Mockingbird
    2026 : Assigned to Baby Jogger II LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The 2026 transfer is to Baby Jogger II, LLC (Reel/Frame 73567/0738). Although the "…II, LLC" naming looks anonymous in isolation, the concrete counter-evidence is that the same entity is named in IPR2025-01140's real-party-in-interest statement together with Newell Brands Inc. — i.e., a Newell-family entity, not an unrelated licensing shell. No evidence of a registered-agent-only address, no products, or single-purpose design was found. (Marked not present; a residual "unclear" is fair given I could not pull the LLC's state registration.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignment in the chain names Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg, or any Unified/RPX-listed high-frequency plaintiff. Both assignees are operating-company entities (Dynamic Brands → Baby Jogger → Baby Jogger II, all stroller businesses within the Newell orbit).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not established. The only attorney identifier I can confirm is the prosecution firm of record on the patent face, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP. I could not retrieve the recording correspondents for the 2012, 2018, or 2026 assignments, so I cannot test for recurrence. I will not infer an NPE-linked correspondent from the prosecution firm — a single appearance, and one consistent with operating-company work at that.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Two recorded post-filing links across ~8 years (2018 and 2026), plus the 2012 acquisition — far from the "multiple consecutive chained LLC transfers in <24 months" pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The asserted-family suits were filed in June 2024 (incl. Baby Jogger, LLC v. Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, No. 1:24-cv-11582-ADB, D. Mass.; plus D. Del. 1:24-cv-00723 against Evenflo and 1:24-cv-00725 against Baby Generation/Mockingbird). The transfer to Baby Jogger II, LLC occurred 2026-01-23, long after those suits — the opposite of a pre-suit standing-cleaning transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Newell Brands is a public company (NYSE: NWL); no Chapter 7/11 proceeding is implicated, and no 363 sale of the patent is evidenced.

7. Privateering — Not present. To the extent a supplier/operating company litigates, the plaintiff of record is Baby Jogger itself (an operating subsidiary), not a spun-off assertion vehicle asserting on Newell's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. In fact the inverse: Unified Patents-adjacent petitioners (Mockingbird, Evenflo, UPPAbaby) are challenging this family (IPR2025-01095 and related), with US 10,730,543 appearing as Exhibit 1008 in the IPR2025-01095 petition.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The chain is short and stays inside an operating business end-to-end — Dynamic Brands → Baby Jogger, LLC (2012-04-20 Asset Purchase/Assignment) → Baby Jogger II, LLC (Reel/Frame 73567/0738, executed/recorded 2026-01-23), with none of the eight NPE signals above present on confirmed evidence. Baby Jogger (Newell Brands) ships products embodying the claims — the City Select / City Select 2 strollers are virtually marked with US 10,730,543 — and is the plaintiff of record asserting the same patent family against actual competitors (UPPAbaby, Evenflo, Mockingbird) in the 2024 district-court suits. The only item I could not fully close out is the recording correspondent on the 2012/2018/2026 assignments (not retrieved); that gap does not change the verdict, since there is no evidence tying this family to a known asserter or to an anonymous shell.

Verify at USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,730,543; the family's Darts-ip litigation link is https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=57325932).

Residual uncertainties I am flagging rather than papering over:

• 2012 and 2018 reel/frame numbers and all recording correspondents were not retrievable this session.
• Whether Reel/Frame 73567/0738 itemizes US 10,730,543 specifically (vs. covering it under "among others") is inferred from an IPR paper about the '771 patent, not directly confirmed.
• The exact nature of the 2026 Baby Jogger, LLC → Baby Jogger II, LLC step (intra-group reorganization vs. divestiture vehicle) is indicated by the co-named Newell Brands RPI but not independently verified.

I'll research the specific patent US 10,730,543 and its cited prior art. Let me run targeted searches.

The general searches didn't surface the patent's "References Cited" section. Let me try targeted queries to retrieve the front page citations.

Let me retrieve the complete "References Cited" list and the granted claim text from Justia and other sources.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,730,543 B2 ("Removable Seat Attachment for a Stroller")

Note on scope limitation (important): My session's search budget was exhausted before I could pull the complete front‑page "References Cited" section or the verbatim granted claim text. The reference list below is assembled from (a) the OCR of the '543 patent's own front page (Petitioner Exhibit EX1008 in IPR2025‑01095) and (b) the closely related continuation US 11,192,568 (EX1009), which shares substantially the same specification and reference set. The list I could confirm runs only through roughly US 7,938,435 (May 2011) and is truncated thereafter. Treat the table as a partial, confirmed list, not the complete citation set. I flag every place this matters rather than filling gaps.

Per the operating rules, I have not auto‑corrected any number. Where an OCR string was internally inconsistent I say so rather than silently "fixing" it.

1. What the patent's citation section actually is (legal framing)

Two points must be made before any § 102 mapping, because they change the character of the answer:

1. These are "References Cited," i.e., references considered during prosecution — not necessarily references applied as anticipatory art. US 10,730,543 issued with 13 claims over this list. A front‑page citation is not an admission that the reference anticipates; most of these entries carry no rejection and function as background. For a true § 102 map, you need the Office Actions / file wrapper, which I could not retrieve in this session.
2. The '543 patent's front page also carries a "Prior art keywords" field (seat, stroller, support frame, seat attachment, attachment) and a "Prior art date" of 2008‑12‑04 — i.e., Google/UPSPTO associates the patent with the Dec. 4, 2008 provisional (61/119,920). That is the effective prior‑art cutoff against which the listed references would be measured (subject to the § 120 chain).

Also relevant for reading dates: on many US front pages a mark such as * flags a reference cited by the examiner rather than the applicant. In the OCR of the '543 front page, such marks appear against US 6,286,844 (Cone, II), US 7,475,900 (Cheng) and US D593,459 (Liao) — which is consistent with those three being the examiner's closest art. I flag this as an OCR‑based inference, not a verified record.

2. Confirmed cited U.S. patent documents

Dates and inventor names are as printed on the '543 front page. "Description" is my subject‑matter characterization; where I am not certain of the title I say so. Claim mapping uses the reconstructed claim structure from the earlier section (independent claim 1 = stroller frame + wheels + first seat + first/second seat attachment housings, each with a cavity and a door/cover + two removable seat attachment adapters + second seat; dependents = adapter latch, keyed cavity, stop collar/flanges, open bottom, seat positioning).

Truncation flag: The confirmed portion ends at US 7,938,435 (5/10/2011). The continuation US 11,192,568's list continues past this point (e.g., US 8,029,007 / 8,029,014, 2011) and includes U.S. pre‑grant publications (e.g., US 2014/0191483 A1 Rolicki et al.; US 2014/0333039 A1 Zehfuss; US 2016/0046315 A1 Zehfuss et al.). I could not confirm which of those later items appear on the '543 front page specifically, so I do not attribute them to the '543 patent. This is a genuine gap, not a negative finding.

3. Ranking the most relevant art (what little can be said with confidence)

Because the '543 claims are narrow (dual housings, each with a keyed cavity and a door/cover, plus removable adapters with a spring‑loaded latch released by a button/guide wire), no cited reference in the confirmed list appears to anticipate independent claim 1 under § 102, and the patent's issuance over this list is consistent with that. Ranking:

1. US 7,475,900 B2 (Cheng), 1/13/2009 — strongest general‑concept reference; could only reach the "second seat on a stroller frame" idea, not the housing/cavity/door.
2. US 6,286,844 B1 (Cone, II), 9/11/2001 — auxiliary/dismountable‑seat stroller (B62B 9/28); potentially relevant to broad claim‑1 preamble elements.
3. US 6,561,526 B1 (Towns), 5/13/2003 and US 7,677,585 B2 (Rohl), 3/16/2010 — possible second‑seat/mount features (unverified).
4. US D593,459 S (Liao), 6/2/2009 — design art; ornamental only.

Everything else in the confirmed list reads as generic stroller background (frame/folding/wheel patents) with no discernible bearing on the housing‑with‑door or adapter‑latch limitations.

4. Explicit uncertainty statement

Per my operating rules, I state plainly what I could not establish rather than invent it:

• I did not retrieve the verbatim granted claims of US 10,730,543, so every "claim‑1" or "dependent claim" mapping above is against the reconstructed claim framework, not quoted language. A precise § 102 anticipation analysis is not possible without the granted claim text and the prosecution history.
• I did not retrieve the complete "References Cited" list — the confirmed list stops at US 7,938,435 (May 2011); the remainder of the U.S. patents, any foreign patent documents (the family's foreign filings typically cite DE/EP/CN/JP art), and any "Other Publications" (e.g., ISR/Written Opinion from the PCT) were truncated and are missing.
• I did not retrieve any Office Action / file‑wrapper rejection, so I cannot say which of these references the examiner actually applied, versus merely listed.
• The one pre‑existing "near‑miss" identifier already flagged in the earlier section — EP 2442755 B1 bearing application number 10730543.5 — is a European application number, not this US patent, and is excluded from this analysis.

Recommended next step to complete the task properly: pull the '543 patent's full front page from USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Images (PDF) and the file wrapper for application 15/912,901, which will yield (i) the complete citation list including foreign documents and NPL, and (ii) the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections and the granted claim text needed for a true per‑reference anticipation map.

I'll research the prior art and claim text needed for this obviousness analysis.

Let me pull the actual granted claim text and the front-page references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,730,543 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Sources, and one correction to the earlier sections

This analysis uses the "Prior Art" section of the Google Patents record for US10730543B2 and the prior-art record actually surfaced in the Baby Jogger family proceedings (IPR2025‑01095, IPR2025‑01105, and the related D. Mass. / D. Del. filings).

Correction to the earlier "Patent summary" section. That section stated I could not retrieve verbatim claim text and speculated that claim 1 might recite only a generic "door/cover." A PTAB filing in the family reproduces claim text that tracks the '543 disclosure very closely, including the rotatable door limitation:

"A stroller, comprising: a stroller frame; a plurality of wheels coupled to the stroller frame; a first seat coupled to the stroller frame; a first seat attachment housing disposed along a first portion of the stroller frame and comprising a first adapter receiving cavity extending through the first seat attachment housing and a first door rotatably coupled to the first seat attachment housing along a top end of the first adapter receiving cavity, wherein the first door rotates from a closed configuration, preventing access to the first adapter receiving cavity from a top side of the first seat attachment housing, to an open configuration allowing access …; a second seat attachment housing …; a first removable seat attachment adapter removably coupled to the first seat attachment housing and a second removable seat attachment adapter removably coupled to the second seat attachment housing."

Source: PTAB filing reproducing the family's prosecution search strings (entries "S163," "N214," "N412"), https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558025](/patent/1558025)/download-documents?artifactId=tYN2CMULuBxpqFcfPu46VooyzXt3xpLcr5fdM5hqYK1rRnb-KLQPb0U

The internal search dates on those strings (2014/09/24, 2017/11/13, 2020/03/11) bracket the '543's own prosecution, and the March 2020 date is consistent with an August 4, 2020 grant. I treat this as probable claim 1 but it is not verified against the printed patent — treat wording as near-verbatim, not quoted from the patent. Dependent-claim content below is from the specification (FIGS. 8A–14C).

Threshold issue that decides most of this case: priority. Google Patents lists an earliest priority date of 2008‑12‑04 (the Prior Art section of the page reflects this: "Prior art date 2008‑12‑04"). But the subject matter the '543 claims — seat attachment housings with adapter receiving cavities and doors, and removable seat attachment adapters — is described in FIGS. 8A–14C, which came into the family through the CIP (15/225,326, filed Aug. 1, 2016, claiming 62/311,224 filed Mar. 21, 2016). The earlier chain members ('869 from 14/261,558; '550 from 14/597,420) claim a different structure (the FIG. 2/FIG. 9 "connector portion 21 into slot 18" attachment). If the housing/cavity/door/adapter limitations are CIP-added new matter — which the file structure strongly suggests — the '543's operative claims get at most a March 21, 2016 / August 1, 2016 effective filing date, not 2008. Because the '543 was filed March 6, 2018, it is an AIA patent, and art published more than one year before the effective date is § 102(a)(1) art.

This matters enormously, because it is exactly the posture the petitioners took in the sibling IPRs: in IPR2025‑01095 they argued that if the '231 patent was not entitled to its priority chain, then Zehfuss (US 2010/0140902, published June 10, 2010) is § 102(a)(1) prior art — i.e., Baby Jogger's own earlier family publication becomes prior art. See Ground 1 (Dotsey + Zehfuss) at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/ptab/ptacts-uspto/[1557998](/patent/1557998)/zyPJva-Je5No2SrbtJtscesMCfTvfTtWtFvq474jWn1WkgUsVUNrcvs/2224157832/IPR2025-01095_doc_1_exparte.pdf. The same self-collision argument is available against the '543.

Caveat: I could not verify from the record whether the housing/door disclosure was present in 12/631,375 (Dec. 2009). If it was, the 2010–2016 art below is removed from the case and the analysis collapses to a much thinner record. I flag this as the single most important unresolved fact.

1. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Mechanical design engineer with ~2–5 years' experience designing wheeled juvenile products (strollers, carriages), familiar with tubular frames, folding mechanisms, tool-free seat-to-frame couplings, and quick-release latches. Both the '543's field (B62B 7/00, 7/14, 9/10, 9/12, 9/28 — per the classification section of the page) and the petitioners' framing support this. Every combination below is a combination of elements within this single, predictable field — which is favorable to a § 103 conclusion under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

2. Prior-art inventory (all from the record I retrieved)

3. Element-by-element analysis

Claim 1 (probable independent claim)

(a) Stroller frame, wheels, first seat — ubiquitous. Dotsey, Van Dijk, Schaaf, Zehfuss, EP 0 980 810 (frame 13, wheels 17/18, push bar 14, two seats). No dispute.

(b) First and second seat attachment housings along first and second frame portions — EP 0 980 810 expressly mounts "two adapters 12 on the sides of the frame (13)" (claims 3, 5), and Van Dijk places mounting mechanisms on both sides of frame 2. If a "housing" is construed as a bracket/socket structure fixed to the frame, these read on it.

(c) Adapter receiving cavity extending through the housing — the weakest element in the record, but not fatal. EP 0 980 810's adapters have three slots 20 forming a "Schnellverschluss" (quick-release) that receive the seats; Van Dijk's connecting pieces receive adapters; Zehfuss's attachment portion 17 defines a slot 18 receiving the cylindrical connector portion 21 (FIG. 9‑10 of the '543). A POSITA designing a receiver for a removable post would routinely form it as a through-bore rather than a blind pocket; KSR makes the choice between known alternatives (blind pocket vs. through-hole) obvious.

(d) Door rotatably coupled along a top end, closed → open — this is the crux. I did not find a stroller reference in this record that discloses a hinged door over a seat-adapter socket. Two routes to obviousness exist, and the first is grounded in the patent's own text:

• Route 1 — the patent's own admission. The Background states: "the covers for the seat attachments, for covering a portion of the seat attachment mechanism when not in use, are detachable and can be easily lost." That is an express admission that covers for seat attachment mechanisms were known; the only difference claimed is making the cover captive on the housing (rotatably hinged, or slid on rails). Replacing a detachable cover with an attached hinged cover is the classic KSR "predictable variation of a known device" and involves no new principle of operation.
• Route 2 — analogous art / known technique. Spring-biased hinged caps over upward-facing sockets (receiver covers, outlet covers, port dust caps) are a well-known mechanical expedient for exactly the stated purpose — keeping water and debris out of an opening. Applying that known technique to a stroller socket is "the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." EP 0 980 810's adapters themselves can be removed and re-attached without tools, and the '543's stated motivation (limit contaminant ingress; prevent a lost cover) supplies the reason.

Dependent claims

4. The three combinations I would assert

Combination 1 — Zehfuss + EP 0 980 810 (+ EP 0 903 139 for dependents).
Zehfuss supplies the convertible stroller, the front seat attachment, forward/rear-facing reversibility, and the COG/over-the-front-wheels teaching. EP 0 980 810 supplies two tool-free removable side adapters mounted on the frame, vertically offset so the seats overlap, with 180° reversibility. EP 0 903 139 supplies the remotely actuated latch release. Motivation: known market demand for converting a single stroller to a double (stated in Zehfuss itself and in the '543 Background); the '543's own stated problem of permanently affixed attachments and lost covers. Expectation of success: both are conventional stroller frame/adapter structures; integration is a straightforward substitution of known parts.

Combination 2 — Dotsey + Zehfuss. (The exact grounds the petitioners used in IPR2025‑01095, Ground 1.) Dotsey supplies the folding frame with parallel handle and front-wheel support portions; Zehfuss supplies the front seat attachment, reversibility, and COG placement. Motivation: satisfy demand for convertible double strollers and mount the second seat over the front wheels for tip resistance.

Combination 3 — Van Dijk + Schaaf (+ EP 0 980 810). (IPR2025‑01095, Ground 2.) Use two sets of Van Dijk's mounting mechanisms, one on the handle portion and one on the front wheel support portion, positioned per Schaaf's inline layout; add EP 0 980 810's frame-side adapters where a housing fixed to the frame is required.

In each combination the remaining gap is the rotatably coupled door — and, again, that gap is closed by the specification's own admission that seat-attachment covers existed and were merely detachable, plus the well-known hinged-cap expedient.

5. Secondary considerations from the record (and why they are weak here)

• Commercial success. Baby Jogger's own D. Mass. interrogatory response identifies the City Select®, City Select LUX, City Select 2, and City Select 2 Eco as embodying products, and the marking page lists US10730543 among the patents marking City Select 2 and City Select 2 Eco. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558025/download-documents?artifactId=T4sa1KfH8_qz3-3pIgSbp9fToNw8R50Vn0bJD95fUjXGw6kDWrUqEjU ; https://www.newellbrands.com/dA/e5c5062a24/asset/BabyJogger_Patent%20Marking.pdf
• Copying. Baby Jogger alleges UPPAbaby's late-2015 RumbleSeat was "strikingly similar" and sent notice regarding the '869 patent on Dec. 4, 2015.
• Nexus problem (important). The '543 is not among the asserted patents in the D. Del. or D. Mass. cases ('869, '550, '568, '231, '729), and Baby Jogger's own interrogatory response dates UPPAbaby's knowledge of the later patents to June 18, 2024 — not to the '543. The products embody the whole family, whose ornamental/market-defining features trace to the 2009‑priority '869 disclosure, not to the CIP-added housing/door. Under WBIP/Fox Factory, secondary considerations attach to the claim, so this evidence would likely fail the nexus requirement for the housing/door claims.

6. Assessment and confidence

Practical bottom line: The '543's dependent claims are, in my assessment, vulnerable. Its independent claim likely rises or falls on (i) whether the CIP-added housing/cavity/door subject matter keeps the 2008 priority date, and (ii) whether a challenger can supply the hinged-door limitation from analogous art or from the specification's own admission that detachable seat-attachment covers were known. No merits ruling exists on any of this — every IPR in this family (including IPR2025‑01095, which used the '543 itself only as Petitioner Exhibit 1008) was discretionarily denied, so the PTAB has not reached the substance.