Kids2 LLC v. William Carter Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kids2, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Carter's, Inc. (Delaware); The William Carter Co. (Massachusetts); Carter's Retail, Inc. (Delaware); and Skip Hop, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foley & Lardner; MT2 Law Group
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01223, E.D. Tex., 02/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain multiple physical retail locations that constitute regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ line of children's activity centers infringes a patent related to a stationary child exercise apparatus featuring a resilient bouncing surface.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns stationary exercise equipment for infants, designed to provide a secure structure for the child while enabling leg-driven bouncing to promote muscle development and coordination.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent since at least February 2019, when it was cited during the prosecution of a U.S. design patent assigned to Defendant Skip Hop, Inc. The complaint also notes that some of the accused products are the subject of separate, ongoing patent litigation brought by a third party.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-05-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,740,560 Priority Date
2010-06-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,740,560 Issued
2019-02-01	Alleged latest date of Defendants' awareness of the '560 Patent
2026-02-25	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,740,560 - "Stationary Child Exercise Apparatus With Bouncing Pad"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,740,560, "Stationary Child Exercise Apparatus With Bouncing Pad," issued June 22, 2010 (the "’560 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a gap in the market for infant exercise equipment (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 1:12-16). Existing stationary exercisers often provided bouncing motion through a suspended seat, not through the child's own leg movements (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 1:32-38). Conversely, devices that did rely on leg-driven bouncing, like trampolines, were unsuitable for young children who could not yet stand independently (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a stationary apparatus that combines a fixed, supportive seat with a separate, resilient platform or "bouncing pad" suspended below it (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, abstract). This design allows an infant to be securely supported in the seat while using their legs to push against the resilient surface to create a bouncing motion, thereby developing muscles and coordination (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 4:12-15). The distance between the seat and the surface is adjustable to accommodate a child's growth (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 2:15-20).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a way for non-standing infants to safely engage in leg-strengthening bouncing exercises, a function the patent asserts was not adequately addressed by prior art (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 1:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A children's exercise apparatus for providing exercise functionality for a small child,
  • comprising one or more legs supported on a floor;
  • a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs and being structured to support the child while allowing the child's legs to extend downwardly below the seat; and
  • a resilient support surface suspended generally horizontally from at least one of the legs and positioned vertically between the seat and the floor,
  • said resilient support surface having a resiliency that is adapted for allowing the child to bounce vertically by pushing its legs downwardly against the resilient support surface.
• The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims of the Asserted Patent," potentially reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶a).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products include the "Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud," the "Skip Hop Explore & More 3-stage activity center," the "Discoverosity Montessori Skip Hop line of products," and any substantially similar products (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as children's activity centers featuring a seat for an infant, surrounded by an activity tray (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges that these products include a "foot support platform" positioned below the seat that allows a child to "bounce & play" and that the product is marketed as a "Baby Bouncer" (Compl. p. 12). This figure and accompanying diagram depict the "foot support platform," which the complaint alleges is the claimed "resilient support surface" (Compl. p. 12).
• Plaintiff alleges that the accused products are sold through Defendants' physical and online stores, as well as through major third-party retailers, and that they "closely imitate the technology of the '560 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶46-48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• Claim Chart Summary: The complaint provides an element-by-element comparison of claim 1 of the ’560 Patent against the Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud product, which is presented as a representative example of the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶42 n.16). This image shows the accused product, the Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud, identified as a children's exercise apparatus for a small child (Compl. p. 10).

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A children's exercise apparatus for providing exercise functionality for a small child, said apparatus comprising:	The Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud product is a children's exercise apparatus for a small child, designed for babies and toddlers and referred to as a "gym."	¶42	col. 4:5-6
one or more legs supported on a floor;	The accused product has four legs that are supported on a floor. This photo illustrates the four legs of the accused product supported on a floor (Compl. p. 11).	¶42	col. 4:6-7
a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs and being structured to support the child while allowing the child's legs to extend downwardly below the seat;	The accused product contains a seat that supports the child and allows the child's legs to extend downwardly. The complaint alleges the seat is directly supported by the four legs. This visual demonstrates the product's seat, which allegedly supports the child while allowing their legs to extend downward (Compl. p. 11).	¶42	col. 4:7-10
and a resilient support surface suspended generally horizontally from at least one of the legs and positioned vertically between the seat and the floor,	The accused product contains a support surface suspended horizontally from the four legs and positioned between the seat and the floor.	¶42	col. 4:10-13
said resilient support surface having a resiliency that is adapted for allowing the child to bounce vertically by pushing its legs downwardly against the resilient support surface.	The accused product's "foot support platform" is described as allowing the child to "bounce & play" and is referred to as a "Baby Bouncer." The complaint alleges this surface has a resiliency that is adapted to allow the child to bounce against it.	¶42	col. 4:12-15

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of "a seat rigidly and directly supported by the legs." The patent distinguishes its invention from prior art where the seat itself was suspended by springs. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product's seat is part of a non-resilient frame structure, as contemplated by the patent, thereby meeting the "rigidly and directly" limitation.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products' "foot support platform" possesses the "resiliency" required by the claim. The complaint points to marketing terms like "bounce & play," but the court will need to determine if the platform's physical properties are sufficient to enable bouncing in the manner claimed, which suggests a capacity for storing and releasing energy, rather than being a merely passive or slightly flexible surface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "resilient support surface"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's "foot support platform" meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether "resilient" requires a specific degree of elasticity or energy return, or if any flexible surface that permits some movement qualifies.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests multiple ways to achieve resiliency, including using flexible materials for the surface itself (e.g., "nylon, natural or synthetic elastomers, rubber, fabric mesh") or using resilient connectors like "springs, rubber or elastic cords, or rubber rings" to suspend a rigid board (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 5:51-64; ’560 Patent, col. 6:1-3). This may support a broad, functional interpretation of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the surface to have a resiliency "that is adapted for allowing the child to bounce vertically." This functional language could be interpreted to require a specific level of performance, distinguishing it from a simple footrest. The patent's abstract and summary consistently link the resiliency directly to the function of enabling a vertical bounce by the child (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, abstract; ’560 Patent, col. 2:11-15).

• Term: "rigidly and directly supported by the legs"

• Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art exercisers where the seat itself is suspended on springs and provides the bouncing motion. The plaintiff's infringement theory relies on the accused seat being stationary relative to the frame, with the separate lower platform providing the bounce.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term can be seen functionally, meaning the seat is not the source of the bouncing motion. The background section's criticism of prior art where "vertical motion provided by the springs...is felt by the child through the seat" supports this view (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 1:35-38). This suggests any non-spring-mounted seat could be considered "rigidly" supported.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description shows specific, non-resilient mounting methods, such as a seat carrier ring that rotates on a seat support ring, which is in turn fastened to the legs with brackets (Compl., Ex. A, '560 Patent, col. 7:1-20). A defendant may argue that "rigidly and directly" should be construed in light of these specific, fixed embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges direct, contributory, and induced infringement (Compl. ¶51). The allegations of inducement may be based on Defendants' marketing materials and instructions, which allegedly encourage infringing use by describing the product as a "Baby Bouncer" and a device for the child to "bounce & play" (Compl. p. 12).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’560 Patent (Compl. ¶52). The complaint asserts that Defendants have been aware of the patent since "at latest, February 2019," because it was cited during the patent office's examination of a design patent application that is now assigned to Defendant Skip Hop (Compl. ¶¶41, 52).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of technical function: What level of "resiliency" is required by the claims? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating whether the accused "foot support platform" is merely a passive footrest or if it is specifically engineered with material properties that store and release energy to "allow[] the child to bounce" in the manner claimed by the patent.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the phrase "rigidly and directly supported"? The outcome will depend on whether this term is interpreted broadly to mean any non-suspended seat, or more narrowly in light of the specific mounting structures disclosed in the patent's embodiments.
• A third question relates to intent: Given the allegation that the ’560 Patent was cited during the prosecution of Defendants' own design patent, a central issue for damages will be whether Defendants' alleged infringement, if found, was willful. The court will examine what knowledge can be imputed to the corporate entity from a citation in a patent prosecution file.