BabyBjorn v. Ergo Baby Carrier: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
BabyBjörn, Inc. brought an infringement appeal at the Federal Circuit against The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. over two patents covering baby bouncer technology — including the Bouncer Balance Soft and Bouncer Bliss products. After 189 days, the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal, with each side absorbing its own costs.
Baby bouncer patent dispute ends in agreed Federal Circuit exit
BabyBjörn, Inc., through counsel at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pursued an infringement appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1457) against The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc., represented by Lathrop GPM LLP. The dispute centred on two United States patents — US7780236B2 and US7779490B2 — both relating to baby bouncer technology. Products accused in the proceedings included BabyBjörn’s Bouncer Balance Soft, Bouncer Bliss, and Ergo Baby’s The Evolve Bouncer.
The appeal was terminated on 26 August 2025, approximately 189 days after filing, by a joint order of dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The order reflects that the parties themselves agreed to the dismissal — no merits adjudication was issued by the Federal Circuit. Critically, the order specifies that each side shall bear its own costs, eliminating any cost-shifting obligation between the parties.
The voluntary nature of the dismissal and the symmetrical cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal — though the public record does not confirm a settlement or licence agreement. What drove the parties to exit at the appellate stage, rather than litigating through briefing, remains undisclosed. Whether the underlying district court judgment retains legal effect — or whether the patents remain enforceable as originally adjudicated below — depends on the terms of any private agreement not visible in the court record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 189 days
189 days — Federal Circuit appeals of this type typically resolve faster when parties agree early
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissal: what the order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): parties-agreed appellate dismissal
Rule 42(b) allows parties to dismiss a pending appeal by agreement, without any merits ruling from the appellate court. The Federal Circuit issues the order but makes no finding on validity, infringement, or claim construction. This means neither party receives a precedent-setting ruling — the appeal simply ceases to exist procedurally. The district court record below remains as it stood before the appeal was filed, subject to any private terms the parties may have agreed.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal can be entered with prejudice — barring future re-litigation of the same claims — or without prejudice, leaving the door open. The court order here uses neither phrase; it simply records dismissal under Rule 42(b). In appellate practice, the default effect depends on any underlying agreement between counsel. Without access to that agreement, it is not possible to assert whether BabyBjörn retains the right to revive related claims. IP professionals should treat the prejudice status as formally undetermined on the public record.
Prejudice terms undisclosedEach side bears own costs — no prevailing party declared
The order expressly directs that each side shall bear its own costs. In Federal Circuit appeals, costs typically follow the prevailing party under Fed. R. App. P. 39. The departure from that default here suggests the parties negotiated a clean exit with no financial concession on costs. This symmetrical arrangement is commonly seen in agreed dismissals that accompany broader commercial resolutions, though no such resolution is confirmed in the public record.
Symmetrical cost splitPatent enforceability remains uncertain for the baby bouncer sector
Because the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the merits, the enforceability and validity of US7780236B2 and US7779490B2 remain untested at the appellate level. Competitors and product designers in the infant bouncer space cannot rely on this dismissal as a signal that the patents are weak or invalid. BabyBjörn retains standing to enforce both patents against third parties, and any company whose products overlap with the claimed bouncer technology should treat these patents as live enforcement risks pending further proceedings.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BabyBjorn, Inc. | Company | Baby products manufacturer — holder of US7780236B2 and US7779490B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Ergo Bbay Carrier, Inc. | Company | Baby carrier and bouncer maker — maker of The Evolve BouncerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elliot Hales | Attorney | Counsel for BabyBjorn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Tamkin | Attorney | Counsel for BabyBjorn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney, LLP | Law Firm | Representing BabyBjorn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luke Meriwether | Attorney | Counsel for The Ergo Bbay Carrier, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Travis W. McCallon | Attorney | Counsel for The Ergo Bbay Carrier, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lathrop Gpm LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Ergo Bbay Carrier, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order records a dismissal by party agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. No merits language — affirming, reversing, or vacating the court below — appears in the order. This is a procedural exit, not a judicial ruling on infringement or patent validity. The absence of a prevailing-party cost award is notable: under the default appellate cost rules, costs would ordinarily follow the winner. The symmetrical cost split suggests the parties resolved their dispute on terms acceptable to both, though those terms remain private. The two asserted patents are not adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by this order.
US7780236B2 & US7779490B2 — baby bouncer design and construction patents
US7780236B2 (application no. US12/303519) and US7779490B2 (application no. US12/303901) both relate to baby bouncer technology — a category covering infant seating products designed to soothe and support newborns through gentle motion. BabyBjörn, a Swedish baby products brand with a strong global market presence, holds both patents. The products specifically named in this litigation — the Bouncer Balance Soft and Bouncer Bliss — represent BabyBjörn’s flagship bouncer lines, suggesting the patents cover core structural or functional elements of bouncer design rather than peripheral features.
For competitors in the infant products sector, these patents represent meaningful enforcement risk. BabyBjörn has demonstrated willingness to litigate to the appellate level, indicating an active enforcement posture. The Ergo Baby Carrier’s Evolve Bouncer was the accused product, suggesting the patent claims are broad enough to reach competing premium-segment bouncers. Any company designing or sourcing baby bouncer products — particularly those with articulated seat frames, fabric suspension systems, or adjustable bounce mechanics — should treat both patents as material prior art and potential infringement vectors requiring FTO clearance.
Should your team run an FTO against US7780236B2 and US7779490B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or retails baby bouncer products in the United States, both patents asserted in this case warrant a freedom-to-operate review. This case confirms that BabyBjörn actively enforces these patents at the appellate level and that a competing bouncer — Ergo Baby’s Evolve — was accused of infringement. The voluntary dismissal does not signal patent weakness; it more likely reflects a private commercial resolution. Product teams bringing new bouncer designs to market should not assume this dispute cleared the field.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the claim scope of US7780236B2 and US7779490B2 against proposed product architectures, identify design-around options, and surface related BabyBjörn continuation or divisional filings that may present additional risk. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert your team if BabyBjörn files new claims or initiates further proceedings — giving you early warning before a cease-and-desist arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7780236B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit baby products patent infringement appeals
Cases involving baby and infant product patent enforcement at the Federal Circuit — covering bouncer, carrier, and juvenile product design disputes.
What this case signals for the baby products IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal leaves enforcement risk intact — and raises questions about what was privately agreed.
No appellate ruling means both patents remain live enforcement tools
The Federal Circuit’s dismissal under Rule 42(b) produces no precedent and no validity ruling. US7780236B2 and US7779490B2 are not weakened by this outcome. Any company developing or marketing baby bouncer products should continue to treat these patents as active risks requiring FTO analysis before commercialisation.
Symmetrical cost orders often signal a negotiated commercial resolution
When both parties agree to dismiss and absorb their own costs, it typically suggests a deal was reached outside the courtroom — potentially a licence, cross-licence, or product design change. This pattern is common in consumer products IP disputes where litigation cost and market disruption risk outweigh the value of a public ruling.
BabyBjorn v Ergo — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 25-1457) was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). No merits ruling was issued. The order, dated 26 August 2025, directed each side to bear its own costs. The dispute concerned infringement of US7780236B2 and US7779490B2, both baby bouncer patents held by BabyBjörn, Inc.
BabyBjörn asserted US7780236B2 (application no. US12/303519) and US7779490B2 (application no. US12/303901). Both patents relate to baby bouncer technology. The accused products included BabyBjörn’s own Bouncer Balance Soft and Bouncer Bliss, and Ergo Baby’s The Evolve Bouncer was the primary accused competing product.
No. A dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) carries no merits finding. The Federal Circuit made no ruling on the validity or enforceability of US7780236B2 or US7779490B2. Both patents remain granted and potentially enforceable. Companies in the baby bouncer space should not interpret this dismissal as a clearance signal.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 39, costs in an appellate proceeding ordinarily follow the prevailing party. An order directing each side to bear its own costs departs from that default and is typically the result of a negotiated arrangement between the parties. It does not indicate fault or concession by either side — it simply means no cost-shifting obligation arises from the dismissal order.
BabyBjörn, Inc. was represented by Dorsey & Whitney LLP, with counsel Elliot Hales and Gregory S. Tamkin named on record. The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. was represented by Lathrop GPM LLP, with Luke Meriwether and Travis W. McCallon listed as counsel. The case was filed on 18 February 2025 and closed on 26 August 2025.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.