Friedman IP v. Evenflo & CYBEX — SensorSafe Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Friedman IP Holdings filed infringement claims against Evenflo, CYBEX, and Seibert Williams Glass over three US patents covering SensorSafe chest-clip technology embedded in child car seats. All claims — and all counterclaims — were dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation in the Southern District of Ohio, with each party bearing its own legal costs.
SensorSafe child seat IP dispute ends in mutual with-prejudice dismissal
On 29 August 2023, Friedman IP Holdings, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:23-cv-00543) before Judge Douglas R. Cole. The plaintiff asserted three US patents — US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2 — against Seibert Williams Glass, LLC, Columbus Trading-Partners USA Inc. (trading as CYBEX), and Evenflo Company, Inc., targeting their respective SensorSafe-equipped child car seat product lines.
The case terminated on 15 May 2024 — just 260 days after filing — via a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal is with prejudice for both Friedman IP’s infringement claims and all defendants’ counterclaims. The with-prejudice designation extinguishes Friedman IP’s ability to relitigate these specific claims against these defendants, while counterclaims — which may have included invalidity challenges — are similarly foreclosed.
The speed of resolution and the mutual with-prejudice structure are consistent with a negotiated settlement reached before significant merits litigation, though the public record does not confirm whether a financial settlement accompanied the stipulation. The equal cost-bearing arrangement is a common feature of confidential commercial resolutions. What drove early resolution — whether prior art exposure, licensing discussions, or commercial considerations — remains undisclosed.
Filing to dismissal in 260 days
260-day resolution — faster than most multi-defendant patent infringement cases
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — all claims and counterclaims extinguished
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Stipulated dismissal by all parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. This is the standard procedural vehicle for agreed case terminations post-answer or post-counterclaim. Its use here signals that defendants — who had filed counterclaims — consented to dismissal, suggesting resolution was genuinely mutual rather than unilateral.
Consensual exit routeWith prejudice bars refiling — a significant concession by plaintiff
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits, preventing Friedman IP from reasserting the same infringement claims against these three defendants on the same patents. For an IP licensing entity whose business model depends on enforcement rights, accepting a with-prejudice dismissal is a material concession — it forecloses future monetisation from this specific defendant group on these specific patents.
Plaintiff’s enforcement rights curtailedDefendants’ counterclaims also dismissed — invalidity challenges closed
The defendants had filed counterclaims prior to the stipulation. These likely included invalidity and/or non-infringement assertions — standard responses in patent infringement proceedings. Their dismissal with prejudice means defendants cannot re-raise those specific counterclaim theories in future proceedings, offering Friedman IP some protection from a renewed attack on patent validity by these same parties.
Mutual prejudice — symmetrical barEach party bears own costs — typical of confidential resolution
The stipulation’s ‘own costs’ provision — covering costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — is the default in agreed dismissals and strongly consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution. Had the case proceeded to judgment, a prevailing party could have sought fee awards under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in ‘exceptional cases’. The absence of any fee award here removes that risk from the record entirely.
No § 285 fee exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Friedman IP Holdings, LLC | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Seibert Williams Glass, LLC | Company | Seibert Williams Glass LLC, CYBEX, and Evenflo — child car seat manufacturers and distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gabriel I. Opatken | Attorney | Counsel for Friedman IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared Michael Klaus | Attorney | Counsel for Friedman IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin James Joyce | Attorney | Counsel for Friedman IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy J. Haller | Attorney | Counsel for Friedman IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel J. Knecht | Attorney | Counsel for Seibert Williams Glass, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph John Beglane | Attorney | Counsel for Seibert Williams Glass, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Douglas R. Cole | Chief Judge | Ohio Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is bilateral — covering both plaintiff’s infringement claims and defendants’ counterclaims, all dismissed with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation on both sides creates a symmetrical bar: Friedman IP cannot refile on these patents against these defendants, and defendants cannot re-raise their counterclaim theories. The ‘own costs’ clause suggests neither side extracted a clear litigation victory, consistent with a negotiated resolution whose financial terms, if any, remain confidential.
US11618352B2, US10710545B2 & US11738667B2 — SensorSafe Child Seat Alert Tech
The three asserted patents — US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2 — cover technology in the SensorSafe product category: sensor-enabled chest clips embedded in child car seats designed to detect occupancy and alert caregivers. The application numbers (US16/273291, US17/655255, US18/105068) suggest a family of related filings filed across different periods, with US18/105068 being the most recent continuation. This patent family sits at the intersection of child restraint hardware and connected vehicle/IoT alerting technology.
The commercial significance of this portfolio is considerable: SensorSafe technology is featured across Evenflo’s premium car seat range (Aton 2, Aton M, Eternis S, Sirona S) and CYBEX’s Cloud Q, representing high-volume consumer safety products. Any company developing chest-clip sensor systems, vehicle-integrated child seat alerts, or caregiver notification platforms should treat this patent family as a live competitive risk. The family’s continuation structure suggests Friedman IP may continue to prosecute related claims, broadening potential claim scope over time.
Should you run an FTO against US11618352B2, US10710545B2 & US11738667B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing child car seats incorporating electronic chest-clip sensors, occupancy detection, or caregiver alert functionality should treat this three-patent family as a priority FTO target. The case confirms these patents have been actively asserted against major commercial players. Distribution intermediaries — as Seibert Williams Glass illustrates — are not insulated from direct infringement exposure even when they do not manufacture the underlying product.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and monitor continuation filings from the same family for newly granted claims. Setting a claim-change alert on this family is advisable given the active continuation prosecution strategy the application number sequence suggests.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11618352B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar SensorSafe and child safety device patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the child safety device IP landscape
A quick, mutual with-prejudice exit across three defendants suggests this patent portfolio warrants close monitoring by any company in the connected child seat market.
SensorSafe patents remain active enforcement tools despite dismissal
The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to these three defendants. The three asserted patents — US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2 — remain in force. Any other manufacturer incorporating SensorSafe-style chest-clip alert technology could face separate infringement claims from Friedman IP Holdings. Competitors should not read this dismissal as a signal that the portfolio has been retired.
IP holding companies in child safety tech are increasing enforcement activity
Friedman IP’s simultaneous assertion against three distinct commercial entities — a distributor, a manufacturer, and an IP-holding intermediary — reflects a broad enforcement posture typical of non-practising entities with licensing revenue goals. R&D teams developing connected vehicle or child restraint tech should monitor this portfolio and assess claim scope against sensor-based alerting features.
Friedman v Seibert — key questions answered
Three US patents were asserted: US11618352B2, US10710545B2, and US11738667B2. All three relate to SensorSafe technology — sensor-enabled chest clips used in child car seats to detect occupancy and alert caregivers. The products named include Evenflo’s Aton 2, Aton M, Sirona S, and Eternis S, plus CYBEX’s Cloud Q.
A dismissal with prejudice bars Friedman IP from refiling the same infringement claims against Seibert Williams Glass, CYBEX, and Evenflo on these specific patents. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — Friedman IP can still pursue other companies that may infringe the same claims. The three defendants also cannot re-raise their counterclaim theories against Friedman IP.
The public record shows a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. This structure is consistent with a private settlement, but no financial terms or licensing agreement have been disclosed in the court record. Whether a confidential commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal is unknown.
Seibert Williams Glass appears to have been included as a distributor or commercial intermediary for the SensorSafe-equipped products. Patent holders can sue any party in the distribution chain — manufacturers, importers, distributors, or retailers — for direct infringement. This inclusion signals that Friedman IP pursued broad chain-of-commerce liability, not just the product manufacturers.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:23-cv-00543) and assigned to Judge Douglas R. Cole. It was filed on 29 August 2023 and closed on 15 May 2024 — a duration of 260 days from filing to stipulated dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.