Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. v. NESTED BEAN, Inc.
Infringement action filed 28 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 12 Dec 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11357268B2US11395517B2
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-10673
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- Indira Talwani
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Mar 2023 – 12 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 259 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Swaddling garment
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Swaddling garment
A new or alternative swaddling garment that swaddles infants by sufficiently restraining movement of the limbs to suppress the startle reflex, yet allowing movement of hand to mouth thereby facilitating non-nutritive sucking and allowing the infant to self-soothe by sucking the hands or the fabric of the garment.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 Jun 2022
- Earliest priority
- 30 Jun 2009
- Est. expiry
- 12 Mar 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KRAWCHUK, HANA-LIA
- Classification
- A41B13/06A47G9/08A61F5/37
- Prosecution counsel
- Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC
- Examiner
- CARREIRO, CAITLIN A
Swaddling garment
A new or alternative swaddling garment that swaddles infants by sufficiently restraining movement of the limbs to suppress the startle reflex, yet allowing movement of hand to mouth thereby facilitating non-nutritive sucking and allowing the infant to self-soothe by sucking the hands or the fabric of the garment.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Jul 2022
- Earliest priority
- 30 Jun 2009
- Est. expiry
- 25 Jun 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KRAWCHUK, HANA-LIA
- Classification
- A41B13/06A47G9/08A61F5/37
- Prosecution counsel
- Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC
- Examiner
- CARREIRO, CAITLIN A
Parties of record
Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alissa Green · Christopher Howes · Cory C. Bell · Elizabeth D. Ferrill · Linda J. Thayer · Robert Gary Kramer
- Firm
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
NESTED BEAN, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Craig R. Smith
- Firm
- Lando & Anastasi LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alissa Green | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Christopher Howes | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Cory C. Bell | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Elizabeth D. Ferrill | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Linda J. Thayer | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Robert Gary Kramer | Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Craig R. Smith | NESTED BEAN, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Big Beings USA Pty Ltd, Love To Dream, Inc., and LB Online & Export Pty Ltd (d/b/a Love To Dream Online and Exports) (collectively “Love To Dream”) and Defendant Nested Bean, Inc. (together, “the parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that all Counts in Love To Dream’s First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action may be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice. Further, the parties stipulate that all of Nested Bean’s defenses to Love To Dream’s Counts are dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the abovecaptioned action is hereby dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 1:23-cv-10673 · D. Mass. · closed 12 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-10673?
1:23-cv-10673 is a patent infringement action brought by Big Beings USA Pty, Ltd. against NESTED BEAN, Inc., filed on 28 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 12 December 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-10673?
US11357268B2 (“Swaddling garment”), assigned to LITTLE BEINGS HOLDINGS PTY LTD, currently active; US11395517B2 (“Swaddling garment”), assigned to LITTLE BEINGS HOLDINGS PTY LTD, currently active. The record also lists Swaddling garment.
How was case 1:23-cv-10673 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Big Beings USA Pty Ltd, Love To Dream, Inc., and LB Online & Export Pty Ltd (d/b/a Love To Dream Online and Exports) (collectively “Love To Dream”) and Defendant Nested Bean, Inc. (together, “the parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that all Counts in Love To Dream’s First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action may be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice. Further, the parties stipulate that all of Nested Bean’s defenses to Love To Dream’s Counts are dismissed witho
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:23-cv-10673 take?
259 calendar days, from filing on 28 Mar 2023 to closure on 12 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-10673?
Chief Judge Indira Talwani presided. Alissa Green, Christopher Howes, Cory C. Bell, Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Linda J. Thayer and Robert Gary Kramer are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Big Beings USA Pty. Craig R. Smith appears for defendant NESTED BEAN.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-10673 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.