In Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc., No.
2023-2043 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the
district court properly construed disputed claim terms of patents
at issue based on the use of those terms in the patent
specification as well as the plain and ordinary meaning of those
terms.
Wonderland sued Evenflo, alleging that Evenflo's 4-in-1
and 3-in-1 convertible car seats infringed its two patents, U.S.
7,625,043 and U.S. 8,141,951, directed to convertible car seats for
children. Evenflo argued for one of the patents that the term
“engagement” should be interpreted to mean “to
interlock with or fit into and move together with.” However,
the district court found this interpretation too limiting, instead
choosing to adopt the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Further, Evenflo argued for the other patent that the term
“connected to” should be interpreted as requiring the
elements being connected to be physically distinct
