Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie

I'll research this case to verify the details before writing the overview.

Now let me dig into the IPRs, the corporate/insolvency background, and the case's final resolution.

Let me get the final resolution, the remaining IPRs, and Momcozy's corporate background.

Case Overview and Background

The parties: two operating companies, not an NPE/PAE or university case. Defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie is a UK femtech operating company, founded in April 2013 by Tania Boler, headquartered in Bristol, and the maker of the Elvie Pump (marketed as the first silent, wearable in-bra breast pump), the Elvie Stride, the Elvie Trainer pelvic-floor device, and later sleep products. The Elvie side raised roughly $186M in venture funding across rounds through 2021 (Octopus Ventures, IPGL, BlackRock PE, Hiro Capital, among others). On March 28, 2025, Chiaro's directors appointed Lindsay Hallam, Matthew Boyd Callaghan, and Oliver Wright of FTI Consulting as joint administrators and, immediately upon appointment, completed a pre-packaged sale of substantially all business and assets to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited (a subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc.) for £6.1M, transferring all 178 employees (Elvie "Appointment of Administrators" notice; [FTI Statement of Proposals, 4 Apr. 2025](

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several parallel searches.

This is a rich case. Let me dig into the docket and the PTAB proceedings.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket history and attorney details.

Let me verify the roles of the various firms and confirm who was counsel at the time of the final judgment.

Bottom line

Plaintiff-side representation in Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (W.D. Wash. No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE) turned over substantially during the ~2.5-year life of the case. By the time the case ended in the January 5, 2026 consent judgment of non-infringement, only two firms were counsel of record for all plaintiffs/counterclaim-defendants: Arete Law Group PLLC (Seattle — local/Washington counsel) and Fish & Richardson P.C. (out-of-state lead counsel admitted pro hac vice). That is confirmed by the parties' own Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Dkt. 133, filed Aug. 26, 2024), which states that "ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC and FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. remain as counsel of record for all Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants," and by the minute entry for the final proceedings, which lists "Pla Counsel: Kelly Del Dotto, Matthew Colvin, Jeremy E Roller."

A significant caveat up front: I was able to retrieve docket-level attorney and address data (via the mirrored PACER docket, CourtListener, and the archived filed PDFs on archive.org), but I could not open PACER itself or a Law360/Reuters profile for every attorney. Where I could not independently verify a biographical detail, I say so rather than fill it in.

---

Counsel of record at the close (Jan. 2026 consent judgment)

Note on the Arete address: Arete's address appears in the docket and filings both as 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 (earlier) and 600 University Street, Suite 2420 (later, e.g., Dkt. 146). Both refer to the same Seattle firm.

---

Earlier plaintiff-side counsel (withdrawn or terminated)

These attorneys appeared for the plaintiffs but were no longer of record by the end:

The Aug. 26, 2024 withdrawal notice (Dkt. 133) is the cleanest single source for the transition: it states that SHM Law Firm and Merchant & Gould represented all Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, and that Arete and Fish & Richardson remained.

---

Parallel PTAB counsel (same client, different forum)

For context on the plaintiffs' overall patent-litigation team: Fish & Richardson also represented plaintiff Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. as Petitioner in the parallel IPRs against Elvie's patents — e.g., IPR2024-00953 (U.S. Pat. 11,413,380) and a related petition, IPR2024-01296. That PTAB team's lead counsel was Michael T. Hawkins (Reg. No. 57,867), with Craig A. Deutsch, Terry Stalford, Yong Peng, and Ryan Chowdhury as back-up (Fish & Richardson, Minneapolis/Washington D.C.). These are distinct from the district-court team, but they are the same client and the same firm, so worth noting for the fuller picture. (Source: Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices filed Aug. 27, 2024, ptacts.uspto.gov.)

---

Things I could not verify — flagged, not filled in

1. Davis Wright Tremaine (Seattle, 920 Fifth Ave.) appears on one aggregated parties listing in connection with the case. I could not confirm from the retrieved docket text which party that appearance was for (it may relate to Shenzhen TPH Technology Co., Ltd., which was a counterclaim/cross-claim party rather than a purely aligned plaintiff — the docket reflects TPH's own cross-claims and a stipulated extension of the plaintiffs' deadline to respond to them, Dkt. 146/154). I am not asserting a Davis Wright Tremaine attorney as plaintiff counsel without confirmation.
2. Dorsey & Whitney's specific client among the plaintiff entities (see above) is unverified.
3. Individual bios for the Fish & Richardson district-court team (Del Dotto, Colvin, Bruce) — I confirmed their firm, offices,

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Chiaro Technology Ltd. d/b/a Elvie in this case.

Good initial data. Now let me verify the specific defendant-side counsel and distinguish this case from the parallel EDTX case involving Chiaro/Elvie.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie

The defendant in this case (Chiaro Technology Ltd., the UK femtech company behind the Elvie breast-pump brand) was represented throughout by a two-firm team: a Washington, D.C. patent boutique as lead/primary counsel, and a Seattle firm as local counsel. The roster below is drawn from the docket sheet in Shenzhen Root Technology Co. Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash.) (CourtListener docket 67291241; WDWA civil docket reproduced in PTAB filings), and from signed stipulations/orders in that case (e.g., Dkt. 107, Dkt. 138).

Lead / primary counsel — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (Washington, D.C.)

All of these attorneys were admitted pro hac vice and are listed on the WDWA docket as "LEAD ATTORNEY." The firm was on the case from the outset, appearing in response to Momcozy's May 2023 TRO motion (Dkt. 23–28, 25–27).

Local counsel — Lowe Graham Jones PLLC (Seattle, WA)

No in-house counsel for Chiaro/Elvie appears on the docket in this matter, and I found no separate firm appearing for Elvie here.

Important distinction — do not confuse with the parallel litigation

Elvie's other patent suits involve a different defense team. In the Eastern District of Texas action involving Chiaro/Elvie (e.g., Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., EDTX, Judge Rodney Gilstrap/Roy S. Payne), the Elvie-side counsel includes Melissa Richards Smith, Andrew (Tom) Gorham, Donald Banowit, and Kyle Conklin — those appearances (Dkt. nos. around 71–106, Markman before Judge Payne, 2024) are in the Texas case, not in 2:23-cv-00631-KKE, and should not be attributed to this W.D. Wash. matter.

Context affecting the representation

• Chiaro Technology Ltd. entered UK administration (the UK analogue of bankruptcy) on March 28, 2025, and sold substantially all of its business and assets — including the asserted patents — to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, while retaining claims to the ongoing U.S. litigation (see Sterne Kessler's "Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices," IPR2024-01296, Apr. 22, 2025). This drove the stay in this case.
• The case was ultimately resolved by a consent judgment of non-infringement and dismissal with prejudice of Elvie's counterclaims, with the case terminated Jan. 5, 2026. I could not, within this research pass, pull the signature block of the final consent judgment to confirm the specific attorneys who signed it; the names above are those of record on the docket.

Sourcing caveats: Party/counsel data are from the CourtListener docket (docket 67291241) and the WDWA docket sheet reproduced in PTAB filings (ptacts.uspto.gov), plus signed orders/stipulations at Dkt. 107 (Mar. 18, 2024) and Dkt. 138 (Jan. 10, 2025), and the withdrawal notice at Dkt. 133 (Aug. 26, 2024). I did not independently verify each individual pro hac vice admission order, and some filings in the case were sealed — if you need the exact bar-admission dates or the final judgment signatories, those should be confirmed against PACER.