Nanobebe v. Mayborn: Baby Bottle Patent Dispute Settled in 51 Days
Nanobece US, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, and Mayborn Group in the Southern District of New York, asserting US11730680B2 against Mayborn’s Flexy Silicone and Plastic Breastmilk Baby Bottles. The case was resolved by settlement within 51 days — before any substantive court ruling.
51-day settlement in the infant feeding product patent space
On 15 November 2023, Nanobebe US, Inc. filed suit against Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, Inc., and Mayborn Group Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-10075), presided over by Judge Edgardo Ramos. The complaint asserted infringement of US11730680B2, a patent in the infant feeding technology space, targeting Mayborn’s Flexy Silicone Baby Bottle and Plastic Breastmilk Baby Bottle products. Nanobebe was represented by Baker Botts LLP, while Mayborn retained Fish & Richardson LLP.
The case closed on 5 January 2024 — just 51 days after filing — following notification to the court that all asserted claims had been settled. Judge Ramos issued an order discontinuing the action without costs to either party, while preserving the right to reopen the matter within 30 days should the settlement not be consummated. The parties were also given the option to submit the settlement agreement for court endorsement to preserve judicial enforcement jurisdiction.
A resolution within 51 days is notably rapid, suggesting the parties may have been engaged in pre-litigation negotiations or reached agreement shortly after the complaint put formal pressure on discussions. The terms of the settlement — including any licensing arrangement, product modification commitment, or financial consideration — remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record. What drove such swift resolution, and whether Mayborn secured a licence or agreed to design changes, cannot be determined from available filings.
Filing to settlement in 51 days
51 days — exceptionally fast resolution, well under median for patent infringement cases
How the Nanobebe v. Mayborn case was resolved by settlement
Discontinued without costs — what that means
The court’s discontinuation order terminates the litigation without any judicial finding of infringement, validity, or damages. Neither party was ordered to pay the other’s legal costs. This is a standard settlement-related dismissal in federal court — the action ends, but the underlying settlement agreement governs any continuing obligations between the parties.
No liability findingDismissal without prejudice — refiling remains possible
The court’s order is structured as a discontinuation without prejudice, conditioned on consummation of the settlement. If the settlement falls through within 30 days, either party may apply to reopen. If the settlement is finalised, the dismissal becomes effective. This structure is distinct from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar Nanobebe from refiling the same claims against Mayborn on this patent.
Conditional on settlement closeTerms are private — licence or design-around unknown
Settlement agreements in patent cases are typically confidential unless submitted to the court for enforcement. The parties here were given the option to ‘so order’ their agreement, but there is no public indication they did so. Whether Mayborn obtained a licence to US11730680B2, agreed to modify its products, or paid a lump sum cannot be determined from the public record.
No public terms disclosedThree Mayborn entities named — why that matters
Nanobebe named Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, Inc., and Mayborn Group Limited as co-defendants. Naming multiple corporate entities across jurisdictions is a common plaintiff strategy to capture the full infringing supply chain — from manufacturer to US distributor — and to prevent any single entity from escaping liability by pointing to another group member.
Supply chain enforcement tacticFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nanobebe US, Inc. | Company | Infant feeding product innovator — holder of US11730680B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mayborn (UK) Limited | Company | Mayborn Group: UK-based consumer baby products company, maker of Tommee Tippee brandSearch 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 | Robert Lawrence Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Nanobebe US, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Stephen Goetz | Attorney | Counsel for Mayborn (UK) LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Edgardo Ramos | Chief Judge | New York Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order reflects a standard settlement discontinuation rather than any adjudicated outcome. The phrase ‘all claims asserted herein have been settled’ confirms no claim survived to trial or summary judgment. The 30-day reopening window and option to ‘so order’ the settlement agreement are procedural safeguards — neither implies weakness in the settlement itself. No finding of infringement or validity was made, and no costs were assessed against either party.
US11730680B2 — infant feeding bottle design and function patent
US11730680B2 (application number US17/562519) is a United States utility patent in the infant feeding technology domain, held by Nanobece US, Inc. The patent was asserted specifically against Mayborn’s Flexy Silicone Baby Bottle and Plastic Breastmilk Baby Bottle — product lines designed for breastfed babies. The application number and grant number suggest a relatively recent filing, consistent with Nanobebe’s positioning as an innovation-led entrant in the premium baby feeding segment.
This patent represents commercial significance beyond the Mayborn dispute: enforcement against a major global baby products group (the maker of Tommee Tippee) suggests Nanobebe views US11730680B2 as a meaningful competitive barrier. Any company developing silicone or anatomy-inspired baby bottle designs in the US market should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk. The swift settlement outcome does not extinguish future enforcement — Nanobebe retains the patent and may assert it again.
Should you run an FTO search against US11730680B2?
Any product team developing infant feeding bottles — particularly silicone constructions, breastmilk-optimised shapes, or bottle designs aimed at breastfed babies — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11730680B2 before US launch or distribution. The Nanobebe v. Mayborn settlement demonstrates this patent is actively asserted against commercial competitors, including well-resourced global players.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11730680B2 against your product specifications and flag overlap risk in minutes. Claim monitoring alerts will also notify you of any continuation applications or related patents Nanobebe files — critical intelligence if this patent family is expanding. Start with a targeted search on US11730680B2 to understand the claim boundaries before finalising your product design.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11730680B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in infant feeding and baby product technology
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 infant feeding IP landscape
A 51-day settlement between two active players in the baby bottle market suggests real commercial tension — and live patent risk in this product category.
US11730680B2 is an actively enforced patent — take it seriously
Nanobebe’s willingness to file in the Southern District of New York and engage Baker Botts signals a confident enforcement posture. Competitors in the infant feeding device space — particularly those selling silicone or breastmilk-optimised bottle designs — should assess their exposure to this patent before product launch or market expansion.
Speed of settlement may reflect pre-filing negotiation or strong claim position
51-day resolutions in patent cases are uncommon. This timeline is consistent with either an accelerated commercial negotiation triggered by the filing or a pre-existing dialogue that the lawsuit formalised. Either way, Mayborn’s rapid settlement suggests the defendant saw material risk in continued litigation or had business reasons to resolve quickly.
Nanobebe v Mayborn — key questions answered
The case settled. On 5 January 2024, the Southern District of New York issued an order discontinuing the action after the court was advised that all asserted claims had been settled. The dismissal carried no costs to either party and included a 30-day window to reopen if the settlement was not consummated.
Nanobebe asserted US11730680B2 (application US17/562519), a patent in the infant feeding technology space. The patent was asserted against Mayborn’s Flexy Silicone Baby Bottle and Plastic Breastmilk Baby Bottle product lines.
Nanobebe named Mayborn (UK) Limited, Mayborn USA, Inc., and Mayborn Group Limited as co-defendants. Naming multiple entities across the corporate group is a common enforcement strategy designed to cover the full supply and distribution chain, preventing any single entity from deflecting liability to another group member.
The settlement terms are confidential and not available in the public record. The court order confirms all claims were settled and the action discontinued without costs, but does not disclose whether Mayborn obtained a patent licence, agreed to design changes, or paid financial consideration. No finding of infringement or invalidity was made.
The case lasted 51 days, from filing on 15 November 2023 to closure on 5 January 2024. This is notably faster than the median duration for patent infringement cases in US district courts, which typically run well over a year before resolution, suggesting either pre-litigation negotiation or a rapid commercial agreement once proceedings commenced.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.