Short Summary
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
Detailed Summary
Evenflo Company, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Baby Jogger, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 11,577,771, which claims a convertible single‑ to‑double‑seat stroller. The petitioner contends that the patent lacks a valid pre‑2016 priority date and that the asserted claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references: Rolicki, Gotting, Britax, Offord ’341, and Offord ’797. Three separate §103 grounds are presented, covering all fifteen claims (or the first five for the Offord references). The petition also adopts a specific construction for the term “handle portion.” The PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute the review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Evenflo Company, Inc. vs Baby Jogger, LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al.vsSK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
LiveIntent, Inc.vsDATONICS, LLC
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, arguing they are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.