Evenflo Company, Inc. v. Baby Jogger, LLC et al.

IPR2025-01140

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01140
Filing Date
17 June 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00050

Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00050, allowing the challenger to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patentIPR2024-00748

Google LLCvsDialect LLC

Google filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Dialect's voice‑command patent. The petition argues the Board misread the Coffman reference and ignored expert testimony, urging that any factual disputes be resolved on a full record.

patentIPR2025-01164

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.

patentIPR2024-00942

Google LLC et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

A coalition of tech giants and wireless carriers, including Google LLC and Verizon Wireless, has filed an IPR petition against Headwater Research's '541 patent. The petitioners challenge the validity based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), citing combinations of prior art references.

patentIPR2025-00627

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsKAIFI LLC

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call