MARSHALL, TX (LN) — U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on April 22 resolved three disputed claim terms in Oribel Pte Ltd.'s patent infringement suit against Carter's Retail Inc., The William Carter Company, and Skip Hop Inc., ruling that the phrase "playgroup accessory" is not indefinite but construing "interchangeable playgroup accessories" in a manner that aligns more closely with the defendants' position and limits the scope of Oribel's infringement theory.
The case turns on U.S. Patent 10,736,437, which covers a portable activity center — a frame with foldable telescoping legs, a tray, a bouncy seat, and snap-in toy accessories — that Oribel alleges the Carter's defendants sell without authorization.
Carter's and Skip Hop had argued that "playgroup accessory" was fatally vague because the patent offered only a handful of non-limiting examples — snap-in toys, book supports, drawing systems, buckets, and playhouses — while, in the defendants' words, remaining open to infinite other possibilities. Gilstrap was unpersuaded, noting that the patent never uses "playgroup accessories" without the modifier "interchangeable," which itself tethers the term to the portable activity center context. That constraint, he wrote, means a skilled artisan would not think a jump rope or scissors fell within the claim's scope. Because the defendants offered no evidence about the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, they failed to carry their burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Gilstrap construed "playgroup accessory" as an accessory designed to provide educational or entertainment activities for a child.
On the second term, Gilstrap adopted a construction closer to the defendants' position. The fight was over whether "interchangeable playgroup accessories" simply means accessories that can be removed and repositioned anywhere on the tray, or whether they must be capable of being exchanged with each other — occupying the same general area. Gilstrap adopted the narrower reading, construing the term as playgroup accessories that can be exchanged with other playgroup accessories. The specification, he held, is replete with examples of accessories sharing the same type of attachment ends and fitting into the same set of apertures, which shows "interchangeable" means something more than merely removable or repositionable.
Oribel had pushed back, arguing that the narrower reading would eliminate disclosed embodiments — including a book support that Oribel contended was shown attached to the cover. Gilstrap agreed that "interchangeable" does not require accessories to share an identical footprint, pointing to the patent's own disclosure that the cover and seat are interchangeable despite having different attachment mechanisms. But he held that some common characteristic beyond mere placement on the tray is required.
The third dispute was over whether the tray's "horizontal radial surface slopes radially inwardly" must slope continuously, as Carter's urged, or whether a step profile — two flat horizontal surfaces separated by a vertical ridge — could satisfy the limitation. Gilstrap construed the phrase as "slopes downward toward a central point," declining to add a continuity requirement but signaling deep skepticism about Oribel's infringement theory. "The Court struggles to see how it could," he wrote of the step-profile argument, though he reserved the ultimate call for the infringement phase.
Gilstrap also ordered both sides not to reference claim-construction positions or any part of his opinion before the jury beyond the actual constructions adopted.
The case is Oribel Pte Ltd. v. Carters Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00977, in the Eastern District of Texas.