The dispute centers on U.S. Patent 10,736,437, which covers a portable activity center for young children that converts into a table. The patent describes a frame with foldable legs, a tray with an opening, and interchangeable accessories that provide educational or entertainment value.
The court resolved two of the three disputed claim terms from the patent. It rejected Defendants’ argument that “playgroup accessory” was indefinite, construing it as an accessory designed to provide educational or entertainment activities for a child.
The court also defined “interchangeable playgroup accessory” as a playgroup accessory that can be exchanged with other playgroup accessories. This construction requires the items to be exchangeable for one another, rather than simply removable or repositionable on the tray.
Regarding the third disputed term, “slopes radially inwardly,” Judge Gilstrap construed it as sloping downward toward a central point. However, the court noted that it struggled to see how a vertical ridge separating two horizontal surfaces could meet this limitation and reserved judgment on that specific factual question for the infringement analysis phase.
The order prohibits both parties from referencing their own or each other’s claim-construction positions before the jury. The parties must also refrain from mentioning any part of the opinion other than the actual positions adopted by the Court during jury proceedings.