ECR4Kids v. dbest products: Infringement Case Transferred to C.D. California
ECR4Kids, LP brought a patent infringement action against dbest products, Inc. in the District of New Jersey, asserting US11338835B2. After 372 days, the New Jersey court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and transferred the case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), where substantive proceedings will continue.
Venue dispute sends ECR4Kids infringement action west
ECR4Kids, LP filed suit against dbest products, Inc. on May 17, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting infringement of US11338835B2. The patent, filed under application number US17/143116, covers technology associated with wheeled transport or cart products — the same category marketed by dbest products. The case was assigned docket number 2:23-cv-02675 and proceeded through early motion practice over the following year.
On May 23, 2024, the court issued an order resolving two competing motions. Defendant dbest products had moved to dismiss under ECF No. 14; plaintiff ECR4Kids cross-moved to transfer the action to the Central District of California under ECF No. 16. The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice — meaning dismissal arguments are preserved — and granted the transfer motion, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which authorises transfer when venue is improper or in the interest of justice. The New Jersey docket was formally closed.
The 372-day timeline reflects a case that progressed through initial pleadings and substantive motion practice before venue was resolved. Transfer under § 1406(a) — as opposed to § 1404(a) convenience transfer — suggests the court found at minimum a colorable venue deficiency in New Jersey, a signal that can affect how the receiving court views the litigation posture. The merits of the infringement claim and the preserved dismissal motion now proceed before the Central District of California; public records are silent on any licensing discussions or settlement framework.
Filing to Case Terminated in 372 days
372 days in D.N.J. before transfer — venue disputes typically resolve within 6–12 months
Case transferred to C.D. California: what the order means for both parties
Transfer under § 1406(a) is not a neutral procedural step
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) authorises a court to dismiss or transfer a case filed in the wrong district. The court’s choice to transfer — rather than dismiss — preserved ECR4Kids’ claim and suggests the court weighed judicial efficiency. Crucially, this statute is used when venue is improper, distinguishing it from § 1404(a) convenience transfers, which assume proper venue. That distinction can influence early motions in the Central District.
§ 1406(a) — improper venue transferECR4Kids keeps its claim alive but faces a new forum
ECR4Kids’ cross-motion to transfer was granted, which is a procedural win: the infringement claim survives and moves to a court where, presumably, venue is proper. However, the Central District of California may apply different local rules, scheduling norms, and judicial attitudes toward patent cases. ECR4Kids must now re-establish its litigation position before a new judge, and the defendant’s preserved dismissal motion remains a live risk.
Claim survives — new forum riskdbest products preserves its dismissal arguments for C.D. California
The New Jersey court explicitly permitted dbest products to renew its motion to dismiss upon completion of the transfer. This is a significant preservation: the defendant’s dismissal grounds — which may include personal jurisdiction, pleading deficiencies, or substantive invalidity — remain fully available. dbest products now litigates in California, potentially its home forum, which may represent a more favourable litigation environment for a California-based products company.
Dismissal motion preservedPatent enforcement in consumer products: forum strategy matters
This transfer illustrates the high stakes of initial forum selection in product-category patent disputes. For companies in the wheeled transport and consumer storage product space, where key manufacturers and distributors are often California-based, plaintiffs filing in East Coast courts face real venue scrutiny. The C.D. California docket — home to many consumer product patent disputes — will now determine the enforceability of US11338835B2 against dbest’s product line.
Forum selection risk — consumer products IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ecr4kids, LP | Company | Consumer/educational products company — holder of US11338835B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | dbest products, Inc. | Company | dbest products, Inc. — manufacturer of wheeled cart and transport productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony J. DiMarino | Attorney | Counsel for Ecr4kids, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Norman Elliot Lehrer | Attorney | Counsel for Ecr4kids, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dimarino Lehrer & Collazo | Law Firm | Representing Ecr4kids, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | LISA A. FREY | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | NANCY J MERTZEL | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mertzel Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The May 23, 2024 order resolves venue without touching the merits. The denial of the motion to dismiss ‘without prejudice’ is a deliberate preservation — the court declined to adjudicate dismissal grounds, leaving them intact for C.D. California. The grant of the § 1406(a) transfer motion implies the New Jersey court found the interest of justice favoured transfer over dismissal, consistent with a finding that venue was technically improper. Neither party has received a ruling on infringement or patent validity.
US11338835B2 — wheeled cart and transport product technology
US11338835B2, filed under application number US17/143116, protects innovations in wheeled transport or cart product design — a category that includes rolling storage carts and utility transport products commonly sold in consumer and educational markets. The patent’s grant number indicates it has survived examination and carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The claims define the specific structural or functional features that differentiate ECR4Kids’ product design from the prior art.
For a company like ECR4Kids — a brand associated with children’s furniture and classroom equipment — securing a utility patent over a wheeled product design creates a meaningful enforcement perimeter against competing SKUs. dbest products operates in an adjacent or overlapping consumer cart segment, making claim-scope alignment between the patent and dbest’s product catalogue the central commercial question. If the claims survive the renewed motion to dismiss, claim construction in C.D. California will determine the real scope of ECR4Kids’ enforcement rights.
Should you run an FTO against US11338835B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing wheeled cart or rolling transport products for the consumer, educational, or institutional market should assess exposure to US11338835B2. The fact that this patent has already been asserted in active litigation — and the case has been transferred rather than dismissed — confirms the patent holder is actively enforcing. Retailers sourcing private-label carts and OEMs supplying the children’s furniture or classroom equipment segment are particularly at risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11338835B2 against your product specifications and flag design-around opportunities before you invest in tooling or inventory. Eureka’s citation analysis also surfaces continuation applications and related prosecution history that may expand or constrain the enforceability of this patent family — critical intelligence before the C.D. California proceedings advance to claim construction.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11338835B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wheeled product patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving wheeled cart and consumer transport product technology filed in U.S. district courts, including C.D. California.
What this case signals for the consumer products IP landscape
Venue strategy in patent cases is increasingly outcome-determinative. This transfer is a clear signal for IP teams in the consumer products and wheeled-cart sector.
§ 1406(a) transfers carry a stigma that § 1404(a) transfers do not
When a court transfers under § 1406(a), it is signalling that venue was improper — not merely inconvenient. This distinction can colour the receiving court’s early disposition toward the plaintiff’s forum choices and may affect motions practice credibility. IP counsel should audit defendant domicile and product distribution before filing.
Preserved dismissal motions raise the plaintiff’s litigation cost in the new forum
The court’s explicit allowance for dbest to renew its motion to dismiss in C.D. California means ECR4Kids faces an immediate substantive challenge upon re-docketing. Patent plaintiffs should model the cost of re-litigating threshold motions when evaluating initial venue choices, particularly for out-of-state defendants.
Ecr4kids v dbest — key questions answered
ECR4Kids, LP sued dbest products, Inc. in the District of New Jersey asserting infringement of US11338835B2. On May 23, 2024, the court denied dbest’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted ECR4Kids’ cross-motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The New Jersey docket was closed; proceedings continue in C.D. California.
Section 1406(a) authorises transfer when venue is improper or when transfer serves the interest of justice, implying the original forum was legally deficient. Section 1404(a) transfers apply when venue is proper but a more convenient forum exists. A § 1406(a) transfer can signal a stronger venue defect and may affect how the receiving court evaluates the plaintiff’s litigation posture in early proceedings.
Yes. The New Jersey court explicitly permitted dbest products to renew its motion to dismiss upon completion of the transfer. This means the defendant’s dismissal arguments — whatever their basis — were preserved in full and can be re-filed before the Central District of California after the case is re-docketed.
US11338835B2 (application number US17/143116) covers wheeled cart or transport product technology, consistent with ECR4Kids’ portfolio of rolling storage and educational furniture products. The specific claim scope determines what competing products are potentially infringing, making claim construction in C.D. California the pivotal stage for both parties.
Following the May 23, 2024 transfer order, the case now proceeds before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The New Jersey docket (2:23-cv-02675) is formally closed, and the action — including dbest’s preserved motion to dismiss — continues under a new C.D. California docket number.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.