Opinion ID: 222579
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A push-chair for transporting a first child and

Text: a second child, comprising: JOOVY LLC v. TARGET CORP 3 a frame to which is attached front and rear wheels and a seat for the first child; a platform on which the second child can stand disposed at a lower rear position on the frame and including a substantially unobstructed trailing edge, the rear wheels being mounted adjacent the trailing edge of the platform; and means for mounting the seat to the frame at a position substantially forward of the platform; wherein a substantially unobstructed space is formed above the platform and behind the seat, and whereby the second child can step onto and off the platform. Id. at col. 5, l. 24–col. 6, l. 4 (emphases added). Fig. 1 (’375 Patent) Fairclough hired European patent attorney, Michael Harman (“Harman”), to file an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”). Harman associated United States patent counsel Lowe, Price, LeBlanc & Becker (the “Lowe firm”) to file the United States patent application preceding the ’375 4 JOOVY LLC v. TARGET CORP. Patent (“’375 Application”) in the PTO. The PTO examiner originally rejected the ’375 Application as anticipated by U.S. Patent Nos. 3,061,028 (“Konar”) and 2,917,316 (“Gill”), both of which disclose a stroller with a platform that accommodates a basket. To overcome the rejection, Fairclough amended claim 14—issued as claim 1—to require the platform of the stroller to have: (1) “a substantially unobstructed trailing edge” with “rear wheels mounted adjacent the trailing edge”; and (2) “a substantially unobstructed space [] above the platform and behind the seat.” PTO App. No. 08/307,703, Amendment, (Nov. 22 1994). These modifications distinguished Fairclough’s invention from Konar and Gill by requiring the platform of the stroller to be able to accommodate a standing child. Another reference, German Patent No. G9109676.6 (“Königer”), was disclosed to the PTO as part of the PCT International Search Report. Harman wrote to Fairclough that because Königer was “concerned with providing a platform for a second child to stand at the rear, [he] though it [was] necessary to obtain a full translation, so that [they could] see precisely what it disclose[d].” Joovy, No. 06-616-F, Ex. 76, at 2. Harman obtained an unofficial translation for their “own understanding.” Id. No translation of Königer was provided to the PTO, and the prosecution history indicates that the PTO examiner did not consider Königer in examining the ’375 Application. On April 29, 1996, during the United States prosecution, Fairclough’s exclusive licensee, Baby Trend, received a cease and desist letter from Nancy Dronyk regarding Canadian Patent No. 2,033,896 (“Dronyk”), entitled “Platform Attachment for a Stroller.” See fig.2. Fig. 2 (Dronyk) JOOVY LLC v. TARGET CORP 5 Baby Trend brought the letter to Fairclough’s attention, and Fairclough obtained a copy of Dronyk. Fairclough subsequently provided a letter to Baby Trend stating that his invention “does not infringe in any way on [Dronyk]” because, inter alia, it “pertains to a small trailer to be hooked on to the rear axle of existing strollers and is towed . . . .” Joovy, No. 06-616-F, Ex. 869. Fairclough further told Baby Trend: “To the best of my knowledge, to date there appears no prior art that may prevent the grant of patent on my invention.” Id. It is disputed whether Fairclough gave Harman a copy of Dronyk; however, Harman was certainly aware of Dronyk because, on June 5, 1996, he wrote in a letter to Fairclough: “I assume that we have had no reply from Dronyk to your letter of the 11th May. The ball is in her court, and I don’t think we need to do anything more unless she comes back to us.” Id., Ex. 30. Neither Fairclough nor Harman disclosed Dronyk to the Lowe Firm or to the PTO during the ’375 Patent prosecution.