McGinley & SC Products v. Luv N’ Care: Jury Rejects Baby Rinse Pail Patent Claims
Michael L. McGinley and S.C. Products, Inc. accused Luv N’ Care of infringing US Patent No. 8,636,178 with the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail. After more than six years of litigation in the Western District of Louisiana, a jury found no infringement — literal or under the doctrine of equivalents — and the case was dismissed with prejudice on 1 February 2024.
Six-year infringement battle ends with full defendant verdict in baby-bath patent dispute
On 23 June 2017, Michael L. McGinley and S.C. Products, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana against Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and five affiliated entities — including Admar International, Inc., BuyBabyDirect, LLC, and Bayou Graphics & Design, LLC — asserting infringement of US Patent No. 8,636,178, which covers a baby bath rinse pail. The accused product was the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail, a consumer infant-bathtime accessory sold under the Luv N’ Care brand portfolio.
The case proceeded to a jury trial structured in phases. On the core infringement question — Count I — the jury found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving that either the original or the redesigned Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail infringed US8,636,178, whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Final judgment was entered 1 February 2024 in favour of Luv N’ Care, with Count I dismissed with prejudice. Remaining counts and defendants’ declaratory-relief counterclaims were dismissed as moot.
At 2,414 days, the duration of this litigation is consistent with cases that involved significant claim construction disputes, product redesigns, and multi-phase trial structuring — all suggested by the verdict referencing both ‘original and redesigned’ rinse pails. The public record does not disclose settlement discussions or licensing activity. Luv N’ Care expressly reserved the right to pursue costs and attorney’s fees, signalling potential further proceedings that could increase the total financial burden on the plaintiffs.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 2414 days
6 years 7 months — notably long for a single-patent consumer products case at district court level
Jury verdict for Luv N’ Care: what the judgment means for both parties
Jury found no infringement — literal or under doctrine of equivalents
The jury evaluated infringement under two standards: literal infringement (the accused product meets every claim element exactly) and the doctrine of equivalents (the product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result). Plaintiffs failed on both. The dismissal with prejudice means the same claims cannot be relitigated — the adverse judgment is final and binding on the plaintiffs.
Dismissed with prejudiceMcGinley and SC Products lose all infringement claims permanently
The with-prejudice dismissal bars McGinley and S.C. Products from reasserting these infringement claims against the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail. US8,636,178 remains technically in force but has now been tested in court and found not to cover the accused product. Any future enforcement action against Luv N’ Care would likely face issue preclusion arguments. The reserved costs and fees motion represents an additional financial exposure for the patent holders.
Claims barred — prejudice dismissalLuv N’ Care prevails; product line cleared; fee motion preserved
The verdict confirms that both the original and redesigned Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail do not infringe US8,636,178. Luv N’ Care can continue commercialising the product without restriction from this patent. By expressly reserving its right to seek costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and attorney’s fees, Luv N’ Care may pursue additional recovery — a step typically taken when a defendant views the litigation as objectively weak or brought in bad faith.
Product cleared; fee motion pendingProduct redesign strategy validated; baby-bath IP enforcement risk recalibrated
The verdict — covering both the original and a redesigned product — suggests that Luv N’ Care’s design-around efforts were either effective or that the patent’s claims were insufficiently broad to capture the product as commercialised. For competitors in infant bath accessories, this outcome suggests that claim-by-claim analysis and documented design-around processes can be decisive. The case also signals that jury trials in this space favour defendants when infringement evidence is disputed.
Design-around strategy validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Michael L. McGinley | Individual | Inventor-led consumer products company — holder of US8,636,178 (baby bath rinse pail)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | S C Products, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Luv N’ Care, Ltd. | Company | Luv N’ Care, Ltd. — infant and toddler consumer goods company; maker of the Nuby brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | H HH II, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Admar International, Inc | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bayou Graphics & Design, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BuyBabyDirect, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Control Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David M. Skeens | Attorney | Counsel for Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jan P. Christiansen | Attorney | Counsel for Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kip D. Richards | Attorney | Counsel for Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Brian Sichter | Attorney | Counsel for Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vanessa S. Herman | Attorney | Counsel for Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Christiansen Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Walters Renwick Et Al | Law Firm | Representing Michael L. McGinleySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Roger Karamanis | Attorney | Counsel for Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hartwell Powell Morse , III | Attorney | Counsel for Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael L. DuBos | Attorney | Counsel for Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick David Kuehl , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Martin Chiaviello , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Breithaupt DuBos & Wolleson | Law Firm | Representing Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Luv n’ Care | Law Firm | Representing Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rimon Law | Law Firm | Representing Luv N’ Care, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Louisiana Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language is precise: infringement was not proven for either the original or redesigned Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail, covering both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. The dual-product framing confirms the jury evaluated a mid-litigation product redesign. Dismissal with prejudice on Count I is a full merits adjudication against the plaintiffs. Mootness dismissal of remaining counts and defendants’ counterclaims signals the parties had stipulated to disposition of secondary issues contingent on the jury’s core finding — consistent with a structured Phase 1 trial approach.
US8,636,178 & US7,441,675 — baby bath rinse pail design and method patents
US8,636,178 (application no. 12/255,797) is the primary patent in suit, covering a baby bath rinse pail — a consumer product designed to direct water flow during infant hair washing to minimise tear-causing splash. The companion patent US7,441,675 (application no. 10/770,325) appears to cover related earlier-priority subject matter in the same product space. Both patents are assigned to or licensed by Michael L. McGinley and S.C. Products, Inc., indicating an inventor-led enforcement structure rather than an institutional patent holder.
The Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail is one of the best-known products in the infant bath accessories segment, giving the litigation commercial significance beyond the immediate parties. A successful infringement verdict would have constrained a market-leading product line. The jury’s finding of non-infringement — on both literal and equivalents grounds, across an original and redesigned product — suggests the claim scope of US8,636,178 was determined to be narrower than the plaintiffs argued. Companies developing competing rinse pail designs should still conduct FTO analysis on US7,441,675, which was not adjudicated on the merits.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8,636,178 and US7,441,675?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or retailing baby bath rinse pails, infant hair-washing accessories, or related pour-spout bathing products should assess exposure to both US8,636,178 and US7,441,675. While US8,636,178 was found not to cover the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail in this specific case, the claims are still in force and could be asserted against differently designed products. US7,441,675 was never adjudicated — its claim scope remains an open enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim elements of both patents against your product specifications, flag cited prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related design-arounds that competitors have filed. Given that this litigation ran for over six years, early FTO analysis is substantially more cost-effective than defending a district court infringement action to jury verdict.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7441675B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: baby products & consumer goods in Louisiana federal courts
Cases involving consumer baby product patents litigated to jury verdict in the Western District of Louisiana and similar U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the baby products and consumer IP landscape
A six-year jury verdict for the defendant in a single-patent consumer product case carries lessons for both enforcers and product designers.
Doctrine of equivalents claims face steep jury hurdles in product redesign scenarios
When a defendant documents product redesign steps, a plaintiff asserting both literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents faces a credibility burden with juries. This case, involving both an original and redesigned product, is consistent with that pattern. Patent holders in consumer goods should ensure claim drafting captures design-around variants explicitly.
Reserved fee motions signal post-verdict risk — litigation costs can compound
Luv N’ Care’s express reservation of costs and attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d)(1) is not routine boilerplate — it signals confidence that a fee award may be available. After 2,414 days of litigation, those fees could be substantial. IP enforcement strategies should account for the full cost exposure of a failed jury trial, not just filing and discovery costs.
McGinley v Luv — key questions answered
The jury found that neither the original nor the redesigned Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail infringed US Patent No. 8,636,178 — either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Final judgment was entered for defendant Luv N’ Care on 1 February 2024, with plaintiffs’ claims dismissed with prejudice.
Two patents were asserted: US8,636,178 and US7,441,675. Only US8,636,178 was adjudicated on the merits in Count I. The remaining counts — which presumably encompassed US7,441,675 or related claims — were dismissed as moot following the jury’s verdict on Count I, meaning no merits ruling was issued on the second patent.
No. The dismissal with prejudice on Count I operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Plaintiffs are barred by res judicata from reasserting the same infringement claims against Luv N’ Care for the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail. Any future action would need to involve a materially different product or different patent claims.
The final judgment expressly reserved Luv N’ Care’s right to seek costs as prevailing party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and to seek attorney’s fees. The public docket record does not confirm whether a fee motion was subsequently filed, but the reservation suggests Luv N’ Care intended to pursue that remedy following the jury verdict.
The jury found the Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail did not infringe US8,636,178 under the doctrine of equivalents — meaning the product does not perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the patented invention. This is significant because it confirms the product was not merely a trivial variant of the claimed design, reinforcing the commercial clearance of the Nuby product line.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.