Munchkin Lawsuit: Retaliation, Patents, and Trade Dress

The Munchkin lawsuit drawing the most attention is a $10 million retaliation and discrimination case filed in July 2025 by the baby-products company’s former general counsel, Joseph Berkowitz, who says he was fired after trying to investigate hostility toward working mothers inside the Los Angeles company. But Munchkin, Inc. has been in and out of court on several other fronts as well: a patent win against a competitor, an older trade dress appeal, a consumer class action over diaper refills, and a California Proposition 65 settlement.

The Berkowitz “War on Families” Case

Berkowitz filed his 17-page complaint on July 25, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Munchkin and its parent, WHY Brands, Inc. (Case No. 25STCV22061).¹ He seeks more than $10 million and alleges retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Labor Code § 1102.5), and California public policy.²

What the Complaint Alleges

Berkowitz joined Munchkin as general counsel in December 2023. The complaint describes a workplace “riddled with hostility, impropriety, and intimidation” and “plagued by discrimination, cruelty, and retaliation.”³

The lawsuit centers on Diana Barnes, Munchkin’s chief brand officer, whom Berkowitz accuses of waging what he calls a “War on Families.” According to the complaint, Barnes disparaged working mothers as “crazy” or “cowards” who “can’t have it all,” credited her own success to being childless, complained about employees pumping breastmilk, objected to employees supporting maternity leave on LinkedIn, and questioned the job performance of mothers generally.²

One specific incident is called out in the complaint. On July 17, 2024, during a company “Bring Your Kid to Work Day,” Barnes allegedly reprimanded two mothers in front of their children and then demanded they be fired.¹ The complaint also alleges the workplace was “permeated by widespread sexual favoritism and graphic nude images” and that Barnes was permitted to sexually harass Berkowitz.³ A Glassdoor review quoted in the filing describes Barnes’s relationship with CEO Steve Dunn as “inappropriate” and potentially “intimate,” calling it an “open secret.”²

Berkowitz says that when he tried to investigate complaints about Barnes, he faced “swift and personal retaliation.”³ According to the complaint, the company retained Paul Hastings to run what he calls a “pretextual” and “predetermined” investigation into him instead. He was fired in September 2024.²

Where the Case Stands

Munchkin tried to send the dispute to arbitration. On February 24, 2026, Judge Daniel S. Murphy denied the motion, finding that a sexual harassment claim added in an amended complaint exempted the case from mandatory arbitration.⁴¹³ Berkowitz is represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP.²

Patent Win Against TOMY Over the Miracle 360 Sippy Cup

Munchkin has been a plaintiff too. In a patent infringement case against TOMY International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:18-cv-06337), a jury ruled entirely for Munchkin on September 12, 2025, after a five-day trial. The dispute covered two patents on Munchkin’s Miracle 360° Sippy Cup, and the jury found willful infringement of both, awarding $3.9 million.⁵

Munchkin then asked the court to bump the award up to $8.2 million based on willfulness. TOMY moved to overturn the verdict or get a new trial.⁶ On March 10, 2026, the judge added $2 million in prejudgment interest, taking the total to $6 million, and denied the further willfulness enhancement.⁷

The Luv n’ Care Trade Dress Appeal

Munchkin previously sued Luv n’ Care, Ltd. over its spill-proof cup trade dress and patents. The district court dismissed some Munchkin claims and awarded attorney’s fees to Luv n’ Care. On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 19-1454) reversed that fee award, finding the district court had abused its discretion because Luv n’ Care’s motion did not show Munchkin’s claims were so meritless as to make the case “exceptional.” The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that a patent owner should be penalized simply because its patent was later canceled in a separate proceeding, calling that position “wholly incompatible” with the Supreme Court’s fact-specific standard.⁸⁹

Diaper Refill Consumer Class Action

In 2024, plaintiff Zachary McKinney sued Munchkin in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-04338), accusing the company of deceptively marketing diaper pail refill products as a “1 YEAR SUPPLY” holding “Up To 2176 Diapers.” The complaint says the advertised capacity ignores how many diapers a newborn actually uses in a day, so the supply lasts closer to six months. It brings claims for breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.¹⁰

Proposition 65 Lactation Supplement Settlement

In July 2024, Munchkin settled a California Proposition 65 enforcement action brought by Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. The claim alleged that Munchkin’s Milkmakers Daily Boost 2-in-1 Lactation Supplements contained lead and were sold in California without required warnings. Under the settlement, Munchkin agreed either to reformulate the products so daily lead exposure stays at or below 0.5 micrograms or to add a Proposition 65 warning to packaging and its website. The company paid $2,000 in civil penalties and $18,000 in attorney fees, denied all allegations, and admitted no liability.¹¹

Munchkin v. Roxane West

In May 2025, Munchkin filed its own suit seeking declaratory relief against Roxane West, described in court records as a temporary worker who performed services for Munchkin through the staffing agency Lyneer Staffing Solutions LLC (Case No. 25STCV14466, Los Angeles County Superior Court). West responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, a California procedural tool used to dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech, with tentative rulings recorded in August 2025 and June 2026. The outcome is not yet publicly available.¹²

1
Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight. Munchkin Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
2
GlobeNewsWire. Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight Files Suit Against Baby Products Brand Munchkin Inc
3
HR Dive. Former General Counsel Alleges War on Families and Mothers at Munchkin
4
Law360. Munchkin Can’t Arbitrate Ex-GC’s War on Families Suit
5
Lathrop GPM. Lathrop GPM Secures Patent Infringement Jury Verdict for Munchkin Inc
6
Lathrop GPM. Lathrop GPM Represents Munchkin in Patent Infringement Case Seeking Enhanced Damages
7
Law360. Munchkin Inc v. TOMY International Inc
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Munchkin Inc v. Luv n’ Care Ltd, Opinion
9
IPWatchdog. CAFC District Court Abused Discretion Granting Attorneys Fees
10
Top Class Actions. Munchkin Class Action Claims Company Falsely Advertises Diaper Refill Products
11
California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 Settlement – EHA v. Munchkin Inc
12
Trellis Law. Munchkin Inc vs Roxane West