Nanobebe v. Mayborn: Baby Bottle Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Nanobebe US, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action against Mayborn’s three-entity group in the Southern District of New York over US10952930B2, a patent covering baby bottle technology. After 1,091 days of litigation, both parties agreed to dismiss all claims — with prejudice — each bearing its own legal costs.
A Three-Year Baby Bottle Patent Stand-Off Ends on Agreed Terms
Nanobebe US, Inc. filed this declaratory judgment action on October 13, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-08444) against Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, Inc., and Mayborn Group Limited — the corporate family behind the Tommee Tippee brand. The case centred on US10952930B2, a patent covering Nanobebe’s distinctive breast-shaped plastic baby bottle, identified by a cluster of Amazon ASINs across multiple colour and size variants.
The case closed on October 8, 2024, via an agreed motion of dismissal with prejudice, granted by the court. Crucially, the dismissal is bilateral: all of Nanobebe’s claims against Mayborn are permanently extinguished, and all of Mayborn’s counterclaims against Nanobebe are likewise dismissed with prejudice. Each side absorbs its own attorneys’ fees and expert costs, with no fee-shifting award. The with-prejudice designation means neither party can re-litigate the same claims in any future proceeding.
The 1,091-day duration — nearly three full years — suggests the parties engaged in substantial pretrial activity before reaching a resolution. The bilateral, cost-neutral dismissal structure is consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms or licensing arrangement. What drove the resolution — whether a commercial licence, product redesign, or pure litigation fatigue — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1091 days
1,091 days — nearly 3 years from filing to agreed dismissal in S.D.N.Y.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed order means for both sides
Agreed dismissal with prejudice bars all future re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — neither Nanobebe nor Mayborn can revive the same claims in any court. The ‘agreed motion’ framing indicates both parties jointly sought this outcome, distinguishing it from a court-imposed termination. The bilateral structure — covering claims and counterclaims — suggests a negotiated clean break rather than a one-sided capitulation.
Permanent bar on re-filingNanobebe exits litigation but surrenders re-filing rights
As the party that initiated the declaratory judgment action, Nanobebe sought certainty over its freedom to operate with US10952930B2. The with-prejudice dismissal means Nanobebe cannot re-assert its DJ claims, but equally, Mayborn’s counterclaims are gone too. If a licence or commercial arrangement underpins this resolution, Nanobebe may have secured ongoing commercial protection — though the public record does not confirm this.
DJ claims permanently closedMayborn loses counterclaim rights in exchange for certainty
Mayborn’s three-entity group agreed to dismiss its own counterclaims with prejudice, meaning any infringement or other claims it held against Nanobebe’s plastic bottle line are permanently waived. This is a meaningful concession for a patent holder or asserting party. The each-party-bears-own-costs order rules out any fee award in Mayborn’s favour, suggesting the resolution was commercially balanced rather than one-sided.
Counterclaims permanently waivedInfant feeding IP landscape: bilateral exit leaves market uncertainty
With no merits ruling, the validity and scope of US10952930B2 remain judicially untested. Competitors in the infant feeding vessel space cannot rely on this dismissal as precedent for or against the patent’s enforceability. The confidential resolution — if a licence exists — may signal that Nanobebe’s bottle design commands commercial respect, but third parties designing around it should conduct independent FTO analysis rather than drawing inferences from this outcome.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nanobebe US, Inc. | Company | Infant feeding product company — holder of US10952930B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mayborn (UK) Limited | Individual | Mayborn Group and U.S./UK subsidiaries — maker of Tommee Tippee infant productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Mayborn USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Mayborn Group Limited | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elana Araj | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eliot D. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Cozeolino Tempesta | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Matthew Doroghazi | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Lee Raskin | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie Pamela Bookbinder | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laurin Buettner | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Joshua Kasdan | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Lawrence Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLC | Law Firm | Representing Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wiggin & Dana LLP (CT) | Law Firm | Representing Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron P. Pirouznia | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Stephen Goetz | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matt Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Meredith Bayer | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP (Matt Colvin) | Law Firm | Representing Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The agreed dismissal order is bilateral and absolute in its language: all claims by Nanobebe against Mayborn, and all claims by Mayborn against Nanobebe, are dismissed with prejudice to re-filing. The cost allocation — each party bears its own expenses including attorney and expert fees — rules out any fee-shifting, suggesting neither side prevailed sufficiently to trigger a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No merits ruling was issued, leaving US10952930B2’s validity and infringement questions judicially unresolved.
US10952930B2 — Nanobebe breast-shaped infant feeding bottle
US10952930B2 covers Nanobebe’s distinctive breast-shaped baby bottle — a feeding vessel designed to mimic the geometry of the human breast to ease breast-to-bottle transition in infants. The underlying application (US14/551783) reflects development work predating the patent’s grant. The technology sits at the intersection of infant health product design and consumer goods IP, where functional and ornamental features can both carry independent protectability.
For the infant feeding products sector, this patent represents a meaningful competitive moat around a commercially successful product line with documented Amazon distribution across at least 20 distinct SKUs. Mayborn — a major competitor through its Tommee Tippee range — clearly regarded the patent as sufficiently threatening to engage in nearly three years of litigation. The patent’s validity remains unchallenged on the merits in any public proceeding, giving it continued enforcement potential against new market entrants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10952930B2?
Any company developing or launching breast-shaped, ergonomically contoured, or transition-friendly infant feeding bottles in the U.S. market should treat US10952930B2 as a live enforcement risk. The three-year litigation history and the bilateral with-prejudice dismissal — with no invalidity ruling — mean the patent’s claims have never been tested. Distributors listing competing bottles on Amazon are especially exposed given the ASIN-level specificity Nanobebe deployed in its pleadings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and product teams map claim scope against proposed designs, identify prior art that could support IPR petitions, and monitor continuation filings related to US10952930B2. Running a structured FTO before product launch or catalogue expansion is significantly cheaper than three years of S.D.N.Y. litigation — as both Mayborn and Nanobebe discovered.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10952930B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar baby bottle and infant product patent cases in S.D.N.Y.
Explore comparable declaratory judgment and infringement cases involving infant feeding product patents litigated in the Southern District of New York.
What this case signals for the infant feeding products IP landscape
A three-year declaratory judgment battle ending on agreed terms carries specific lessons for baby product IP strategy.
Declaratory judgment filings signal freedom-to-operate urgency
Nanobebe’s choice to initiate as DJ plaintiff — rather than wait to be sued — reflects a calculated move to control venue and timing. Companies holding product lines with significant Amazon SKU exposure, as evidenced by the 20 ASINs listed, face acute commercial risk from patent threats and often pre-empt enforcement with DJ actions.
With-prejudice bilateral dismissals offer finality but no market clarity
When both parties dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, the IP community gains no judicial guidance on claim validity or infringement. For competitors in the infant bottle space, US10952930B2 remains an active patent with untested enforceability — a risk that warrants independent FTO analysis before product launch or line extension.
Nanobebe v Mayborn — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 8, 2024, via an agreed motion jointly filed by all parties. All claims by Nanobebe against Mayborn and all counterclaims by Mayborn against Nanobebe were permanently dismissed. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and expert costs.
The case concerned US10952930B2 (application number US14/551783), a patent covering Nanobebe’s breast-shaped plastic baby feeding bottle. The complaint also identified 20 specific Amazon ASINs corresponding to Nanobebe bottle products as the accused or relevant commercial embodiments.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent termination of the claims. Neither Nanobebe nor Mayborn can re-file the same claims against each other in any court. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, this order operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no merits ruling was actually issued.
The public record shows only an agreed motion of dismissal with prejudice; no settlement agreement has been filed publicly. The bilateral, cost-neutral structure of the dismissal is consistent with a confidential commercial resolution — potentially a licence or product adjustment — but the specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in court filings.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate US10952930B2. Because no merits ruling was issued, the patent’s validity and claim scope were never adjudicated. The patent remains an active enforcement risk for third-party manufacturers and distributors of competing infant feeding bottle products in the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.