Back to Blog
ITCJune 30, 2026·337-TA-1510·SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FILED

Certain Convertible Child Highchairs; Inv. No. 337-TA-1510 (Violation)

U.S. International Trade Commission

Holding

This supplemental complaint, filed by Kids2, LLC in Inv. No. 337-TA-1510 on convertible child highchairs, makes corrections to the Public Interest Statement and the Complaint, including counsel information, exhibit numbers, an accused-products claim table, a domestic industry paragraph, and a litigation dismissal date. It also reports that certified USPTO records have not yet been received.

Why It Matters

The filing corrects the record on which the Section 337 investigation proceeds, including which claims of the asserted patents are charted against the accused Graco products. It removes claim 21 of the '053 Patent from the asserted claims and adds a statement about domestic industry products. It does not itself change the relief sought, but the underlying complaint concerns highchairs accused of infringement.

Full Summary

This supplemental complaint, filed by Kids2, LLC in Inv. No. 337-TA-1510 on convertible child highchairs, makes corrections to the Public Interest Statement and the Complaint, including counsel information, exhibit numbers, an accused-products claim table, a domestic industry paragraph, and a litigation dismissal date. It also reports that certified USPTO records have not yet been received. The filing corrects the record on which the Section 337 investigation proceeds, including which claims of the asserted patents are charted against the accused Graco products. It removes claim 21 of the '053 Patent from the asserted claims and adds a statement about domestic industry products. It does not itself change the relief sought, but the underlying complaint concerns highchairs accused of infringement. Complainant Kids2, LLC submits the supplement through Foley & Lardner LLP; the respondents are not identified in the metadata, and the text names Graco only through the Accused Graco Products. Signature blocks and cover page are corrected to add email addresses, fix a phone number, and change the entity name from Kids2, Inc. to Kids2, LLC. Paragraph 5.21 now cites Exhibits 19-23 for the assignments of the Asserted Patents. Paragraph 6.14 is revised so the Accused Graco Products table (DuoDiner DLX 6-in-1, Table2Table LX 6-in-1, Table2Table Premier Fold 7-in-1) no longer lists claim 21 of the '053 Patent; the patents listed are the '225, '749, '513, '053 and '006. Paragraph 9.7 adds that there are no material differences between the products charted in Exhibit 66 and the other Domestic Industry Products. Paragraph 11.3 corrects the dismissal date of the Kids2 v. Dorel Juvenile Group case in D. Mass. to June 4, 2025; certified USPTO records requested April 15, 2026 are still pending and will be supplemented.

Key Points

  • Complainant Kids2, LLC submits the supplement through Foley & Lardner LLP; the respondents are not identified in the metadata, and the text names Graco only through the Accused Graco Products.
  • Signature blocks and cover page are corrected to add email addresses, fix a phone number, and change the entity name from Kids2, Inc. to Kids2, LLC.
  • Paragraph 5.21 now cites Exhibits 19-23 for the assignments of the Asserted Patents.
  • Paragraph 6.14 is revised so the Accused Graco Products table (DuoDiner DLX 6-in-1, Table2Table LX 6-in-1, Table2Table Premier Fold 7-in-1) no longer lists claim 21 of the '053 Patent; the patents listed are the '225, '749, '513, '053 and '006.
  • Paragraph 9.7 adds that there are no material differences between the products charted in Exhibit 66 and the other Domestic Industry Products.
  • Paragraph 11.3 corrects the dismissal date of the Kids2 v. Dorel Juvenile Group case in D. Mass. to June 4, 2025; certified USPTO records requested April 15, 2026 are still pending and will be supplemented.
amended complaintdomestic industryinfringement

Related Documents

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity