Mayborn v. Comotomo: Baby Bottle Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Mayborn Group and its affiliates sued Comotomo over two breast-like baby bottle patents in California’s Northern District. After 695 days of litigation, both parties agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a), each bearing its own costs — a resolution that permanently bars Mayborn from re-filing the same claims.
Bilateral settlement ends Mayborn’s baby bottle IP challenge to Comotomo
On 11 January 2023, Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, Inc., and Mayborn Group Limited filed a patent infringement action against Comotomo Inc. and Comotomo Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-00134). Mayborn asserted two patents — US10952930B2 and US11207244B2 — covering breast-like baby bottle technology, alleging that Comotomo’s flagship baby bottle products infringed those rights. Mayborn was represented by Fish & Richardson PC; Comotomo engaged Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, and Fenwick & West LLP.
The case closed on 6 December 2024 when the parties jointly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) to dismiss all of Mayborn’s claims against Comotomo with prejudice. The stipulated dismissal also specified that each party would bear its own litigation costs, attorney fees, and expert fees — a mutual cost-neutrality arrangement that is common in negotiated resolutions and typically signals a compromise rather than a clear win for either side.
At 695 days, the case ran for nearly two years, suggesting the parties engaged in meaningful discovery or claim-construction proceedings before reaching resolution. The with-prejudice designation is significant: it permanently extinguishes Mayborn’s ability to re-file the same patent claims against Comotomo. The precise commercial terms of any underlying agreement remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public court record, leaving open the question of whether any licensing arrangement or product design changes accompanied the dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 695 days
695 days — longer than the median consumer product patent dispute in N.D. California, suggesting substantive pretrial activity before resolution.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a) dismissal with prejudice — permanent bar on re-filing
A Rule 41(a) stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, Mayborn cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims — US10952930B2 and US11207244B2 — against Comotomo in any federal court. The parties jointly requested this outcome, meaning neither side was compelled; both chose finality.
Permanent claim barMayborn permanently relinquishes its infringement claims against Comotomo
With prejudice dismissal means Mayborn’s enforcement window against Comotomo for these two patents is definitively closed. The patents themselves remain in force and Mayborn retains the right to assert them against other parties, but the specific dispute with Comotomo is extinguished. Any underlying commercial arrangement — such as a licence or design-around agreement — is not reflected in the public docket.
Enforcement closed vs. ComotomoComotomo secures permanent freedom from these specific claims
Comotomo exits the litigation without a finding of infringement and with full assurance that Mayborn cannot reinstate these exact claims. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Comotomo also avoids a fee award against Mayborn. However, Comotomo cannot use this dismissal as a precedent — no court adjudicated the validity or scope of the asserted patents on the merits.
No infringement findingPatent risk for the breast-like baby bottle market remains unresolved
Because the case settled without a merits ruling, the validity and scope of US10952930B2 and US11207244B2 remain legally untested. Competitors in the breast-like baby bottle space cannot rely on this outcome as clearing the patents. Manufacturers with products in this category should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and consider independent FTO or validity analysis before proceeding.
Patents still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mayborn (UK) Limited | Individual | Baby feeding products group — holder of US10952930B2 and US11207244B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Mayborn USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Mayborn Group Limited | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Comotomo, Inc. | Company | Comotomo Inc. — maker of silicone breast-like baby bottles sold in the U.S.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Comotomo Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron P. Pirouznia | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John S. Goetz | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Stephen Goetz | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matt Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Alan Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith Bayer | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodeen Talebi | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP (Matt Colvin) | Law Firm | Representing Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dargaye Habte Churnet | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jessica L. Benzler | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael John Sacksteder | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick Doyle | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shannon Elizabeth Turner | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Su Li | Attorney | Counsel for Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP | Law Firm | Representing Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Farella Braun & Martel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West LLP | Law Firm | Representing Comotomo, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language closely tracks Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring both parties’ signatures to achieve a binding, court-endorsed dismissal. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation — rather than the default without-prejudice that applies to some voluntary dismissals — reflects a deliberate mutual choice for finality. The cost-neutrality clause (‘borne solely by the party incurring same’) is a standard negotiated term that avoids satellite fee litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and signals neither party conceded bad-faith conduct. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding appears on the docket.
US10952930B2 & US11207244B2 — Breast-Like Baby Bottle Technology
US10952930B2 (application US14/551783) and US11207244B2 (application US17/208932) are U.S. utility patents held by the Mayborn Group covering breast-like baby bottle technology — a category characterised by soft silicone construction and nipple geometry designed to mimic natural breastfeeding. The sequential application numbers suggest US11207244B2 may be a continuation or related application built on the earlier filing, deepening Mayborn’s patent family in this specific product space.
Breast-like baby bottle technology is a commercially competitive niche within the broader infant feeding category, with premium pricing and strong brand differentiation. Mayborn markets this technology under its Tommee Tippee CTN brand, and Comotomo is a direct competitor in the same segment. The existence of two related patents covering overlapping aspects of this technology — asserted together in the same action — suggests Mayborn has layered its IP protection to make design-arounds more difficult. These patents remain valid and in force, representing a meaningful IP barrier for new entrants and existing competitors alike.
Should you run an FTO against US10952930B2 and US11207244B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling soft silicone breast-like baby bottles or related infant feeding products in the U.S. market should assess exposure to US10952930B2 and US11207244B2. This case confirms Mayborn is willing to assert both patents together in federal court against direct competitors. The absence of a merits ruling means no prior-art or invalidity findings provide third-party clearance — the patents’ full claim scope remains legally unchallenged.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscapes of both patents, identify relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag product features that fall within or near the claimed scope. For R&D teams designing bottle geometry, nipple structure, or material composition, Eureka can accelerate freedom-to-operate analysis and highlight design-around opportunities before you commit to tooling or launch a product in the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10952930B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar baby bottle and infant feeding product patent cases
Patent infringement disputes over breast-like baby bottle and infant feeding product technology filed in California federal courts, with comparable claim profiles and dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the baby feeding products IP landscape
A near-two-year dispute between direct competitors ending with prejudice raises pointed questions about patent leverage in the premium infant feeding category.
With-prejudice dismissal signals negotiated resolution, not capitulation
Mutual Rule 41(a) dismissals with each party bearing its own costs typically indicate a negotiated commercial resolution. The 695-day duration suggests the parties had significant discovery or claim-construction exchanges before settling, which may have informed each side’s risk assessment. The absence of a fee award to either party is consistent with a balanced compromise.
US10952930B2 and US11207244B2 remain live enforcement risks for the sector
No court ruled on infringement, validity, or claim scope. Both Mayborn patents survive with full presumption of validity. Any company selling breast-like or soft-silicone baby bottles in the U.S. market should treat these patents as active third-party IP risks requiring independent analysis before product launch or expansion.
Limited v Comotomo — key questions answered
Mayborn asserted two patents: US10952930B2 and US11207244B2, both covering breast-like baby bottle technology. The case was filed in the Northern District of California on 11 January 2023 and alleged that Comotomo’s baby bottle products infringed both patents. All claims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice on 6 December 2024.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) permanently bars Mayborn from re-filing the same infringement claims — based on US10952930B2 and US11207244B2 — against Comotomo. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits for the purpose of claim preclusion, even though no court ruled on infringement or validity. Mayborn retains the right to assert these patents against other parties.
No. The case was resolved by joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) before any court ruling on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. Both patents retain their full presumption of validity and remain active enforcement risks for competitors in the breast-like baby bottle market.
Mayborn was represented by Fish & Richardson PC, with attorneys including Matt Colvin, John S. Goetz, Aaron P. Pirouznia, Rodeen Talebi, and Meredith Bayer. Comotomo retained three firms: Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, and Fenwick & West LLP, with attorneys including Michael John Sacksteder, Jessica L. Benzler, Shannon Elizabeth Turner, and others.
The 695-day duration suggests substantive pretrial activity — potentially including discovery, claim construction briefing, and expert work — before the parties reached a negotiated resolution. Stipulated dismissals with prejudice after extended litigation typically reflect a compromise informed by each side’s assessment of litigation risk. The specific terms of any underlying commercial arrangement remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public court record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.