Litigation
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
instituted, pending final written decisionIPR2025-00554
- Filed
- 2025-03-06
Patents at issue (1)
Defender signal. Patent 11806454 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.
Plaintiffs (1)
Summary
Inter partes review petition by Shenzhen Root Technology challenging claims 17-19 and 21-33 of US 11,806,454. The Board instituted the review on October 14, 2025, and a final written decision is pending.
Case overview & background
Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.
I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB records, and legal press.
Strong leads. Let me dig into the parallel district court case, the patent owners' corporate history, and the companion IPR.
Now let me verify the companion IPR, the PTAB outcome reported in September 2026, and the related Willow v. Elvie litigation.
Case overview and background
**The parties — a competitor-vs
Key legal developments & outcome
Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.
I'll research this case across PTAB, district court, and ITC dockets.
Rich results. Let me dig into the parallel district court case, the related IPRs, and outcomes.
Now let me pin down the FWD outcome, the parallel "Willow" case, and other IPRs.
Plaintiff representatives
Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner in IPR2025-00554 and any parallel litigation.
I have the PTAB picture. Let me confirm roles (lead vs. backup) from the petitioner's power of attorney and identify the parallel district court case.
Now let me pin down the petitioner's official power of attorney (lead vs. backup roles) and the firm office locations.
Counsel of Record — Plaintiff/Petitioner Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd.
Framing note: IPR2025-00554 is an inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. In this caption the "plaintiff-side" party is the Petitioner, Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. (the Momcozy brand owner), and the "defendant-side" party is the Patent Owner, Willow Blossom Holdco Limited / Willow Innovations, Inc. The petitioner's counsel of record are therefore the functional equivalent of plaintiff's counsel here.
Counsel of record for Petitioner Shenzhen Root Technology (Fish & Richardson P.C.)
The same six Fish & Richardson attorneys appear on every substantive paper of record in this IPR — the Notice of Filing Date Accorded (Paper 3, Apr. 15, 2025), the Director's decision referring the petitions (Paper 9, July 17, 2025), and the Institution Decision (Paper 10, Oct. 14, 2025):
| Attorney | Role (as listed) | Firm / Office | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Hawkins | First-listed; appears to be lead counsel | Fish & Richardson P.C. — Minneapolis, MN (3200 RBC Plaza, 60 S. Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55402) | Longtime head of F&R's PTAB/post-grant practice; veteran lead counsel in scores of IPRs (e.g., IPR2016-01084 (Microsoft), IPR2014-01454 (Wasica/Continental)). |
| Patrick ("Rick") Bisenius | Backup/co-counsel (appears second on all papers) | Fish & Richardson P.C. — Minneapolis, MN | Senior PTAB principal; frequently paired with Hawkins (e.g., Juniper IPR2020-01131). |
| Craig Deutsch | Backup/co-counsel | Fish & Richardson P.C. (office not verified) | PTAB practitioner; name appears on the Board's petitioner service list throughout. |
| Terry Stalford | Backup/co-counsel | Fish & Richardson P.C. (office not verified) | Listed on petitioner's service list; office not confirmed from the retrieved record. |
| Yong Peng | Backup/co-counsel | Fish & Richardson P.C. (office not verified); email epeng@fr.com | Listed on petitioner's service list. |
| Ryan Chowdhury | Backup/co-counsel | Fish & Richardson P.C. (office not verified); email rchowdhury@fr.com | Listed on petitioner's service list. |
Caveat on roles: The Board's papers list all six attorneys without formally designating "lead" vs. "backup." I was not able to retrieve the Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 1, filed Mar. 6, 2025), which is the document that formally assigns lead/backup status, so the "appears to be lead" designation for Mr. Hawkins is an inference from his first-listed position and his known seniority in F&R's PTAB group rather than a confirmed docket designation. I also could not confirm the specific F&R office for Deutsch, Stalford, Peng, or Chowdhury, and I have not identified any in-house counsel of record for Petitioner — none appears on the PTAB docket.
Parallel district-court proceeding (for context)
The '454 and '381 patents are also at issue in Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd. (n/k/a Willow), No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash., filed Apr. 28, 2023) — a declaratory-judgment/infringement action in which Shenzhen Root is the plaintiff. That proceeding was stayed (cited in the Director's July 17, 2025 decision as a factor weighing against discretionary denial). Plaintiff's counsel of record there:
- Fish & Richardson P.C. — Carl Bruce (Dallas, TX), Kelly Del Dotto (Wilmington, DE), and Matthew Colvin (Dallas, TX), each docketed as "Lead Attorney, Pro Hac Vice."
- Arete Law Group PLLC — Jeremy E. Roller (Seattle, WA), local counsel for the plaintiffs (replacing Stoel Rives LLP, whose attorneys Brian C. Park and Jacqueline Middleton were terminated in August 2023).
(By contrast, the Patent Owner/defendant side in the IPR is represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP — lead counsel Heath J. Briggs (Denver), with Trenton Ward, Benjamin Gilford, Elana Araj, and Declan Stone-Murphy as backup. This is noted only to distinguish the parties; the question concerns plaintiff-side counsel.)
Sourcing disclosure
The names and service-list emails above are drawn verbatim from the PTAB papers available via Docket Alarm, the USPTO PTACTS petition files, and the Institution Decision PDF for IPR2025-00554. The district-court counsel list is drawn from the CourtListener/Justia docket for 2:23-cv-00631 and the Aug. 26, 2024 filing stating that Fish & Richardson and Arete Law Group "remain as counsel of record for all Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants." Where I could not verify an office location or the formal lead/backup designation (notably the missing Paper 1 power of attorney), I have said so rather than infer a fact.
Defendant representatives
Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
I'll research the docket and counsel for this IPR.
I have the key filing (Patent Owner's Power of Attorney). Now let me research the counsel backgrounds and the parallel district court case.
Now let me verify the counsel details and check for any developments (e.g., a final written decision) and the parallel district court case.
Important framing correction before the counsel list
The proceeding identified in the case metadata — IPR2025-00554 — is not a district court patent infringement action. It is an inter partes review at the PTAB. In that posture there is no "defendant"; the adverse party is the Patent Owner / Respondent:
- Willow Blossom Holdco Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc. — source: Paper 4, Patent Owner Power of Attorney)
- Willow Innovations, Inc.
The infringement case involving the same '454 patent is a separate, currently stayed district court action: Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash.), in which Chiaro (Elvie) was the counterclaim plaintiff asserting the '454 and '381 patents against Momcozy/Shenzhen Root. The IPRs were filed by Shenzhen Root (Momcozy) against those patents. I address both sets of counsel below, but the fully verified list is the PTAB one.
1. Counsel of record for the Patent Owner side (the "defendant-side" party) — VERIFIED
Source: Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, Paper 4 (filed May 9, 2025), IPR2025-00554, and the Board's "FOR PATENT OWNER" service lists in Paper 9 (Dir., July 17, 2025) and Paper 10, Institution Decision (Oct. 14, 2025). All are Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The signature block on the POA was executed by Scott Becker, General Counsel, Willow Innovations, Inc.
| Name (Reg. No.) | Role | Firm / Office | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919) | Lead counsel | Greenberg Traurig LLP — 1144 15th St., Suite 3300, Denver, CO | Co-Chair of GT's Global Patents & Innovation Strategies Group; chemical engineer and registered patent attorney; firm bio states he has worked on 120+ IPRs (clients include Samsung, Limelight Networks, B. Braun, Kia Motors, Schlumberger, SK hynix) with significant medical device experience; Chambers USA Band 3 (Colorado IP); Patexia Top-100 most active IPR attorneys. |
| Trenton Ward (Reg. No. 59,157) | Backup counsel | Greenberg Traurig LLP — Terminus 200, 3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite 2500, Atlanta, GA | Listed on the POA and on the Board's service lists for both the Director decision and the Institution Decision. Individual PTAB experience profile not independently verified in the searches run. |
| Benjamin P. Gilford (Reg. No. 72,072) | Backup counsel | Greenberg Traurig LLP — 90 South 7th St., Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN | Listed on the POA and both Board service lists. Individual experience profile not independently verified. |
| Elana Araj (Reg. No. 75,804) | Backup counsel | Greenberg Traurig LLP — One Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY | Listed on the POA and both Board service lists (the Director's decision renders the email as "araje@gtlaw.com"; the POA gives elana.araj@gtlaw.com). Appears as backup counsel in at least one other GT PTAB filing (IPR2021-01376, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise). |
| Declan Stone-Murphy (Reg. No. 81,789) | Backup counsel | Greenberg Traurig LLP — One International Place, Suite 2000, Boston, MA | Listed on the POA and both Board service lists. Relatively recent registration number; individual experience profile not independently verified. |
| Emma Cohen | Backup counsel (designated; "Pro Hac Vice forthcoming") | Greenberg Traurig LLP — One Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY | Named in the POA only. She does not appear on the Board's service list in Paper 9 or Paper 10, consistent with pro hac vice recognition not yet having been granted/effective at the time of those papers. Treat her appearance as not yet confirmed of record on the PTAB docket. |
In-house: Scott Becker, General Counsel, Willow Innovations, Inc. executed the Patent Owner's Power of Attorney as the client representative (Paper 4). He is the in-house contact of record for the POA, but the POA designates only the Greenberg Traurig attorneys as counsel of record.
Local counsel: None designated. PTAB practice does not require local counsel, and no "local counsel" role appears in the filings.
2. Petitioner's counsel (Fish & Richardson) — for contrast, not the requested party
The Board's service lists (Papers 9 and 10) name for Petitioner Shenzhen Root: Michael Hawkins, Patrick Bisenius, Craig Deutsch, Terry Stalford, Yong Peng, and Ryan Chowdhury, Fish & Richardson P.C. These attorneys represent the plaintiff/petitioner side, not Willow.
3. District court (infringement) counsel — NOT verified; appearance status uncertain
- The related infringement action is Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash.), which the Board confirmed is the co-pending district court proceeding on the '454 patent (Paper 10, § I.C).
- That case was stayed (April 2025) pending Chiaro's UK "administration" insolvency proceeding; Chiaro filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in the W.D. Wash. case (Dkt. 157, Apr. 17, 2025) — both cited in Petitioner's § 325(d)/§ 314(a) opposition (Paper 8, July 16, 2025).
- Because Chiaro Technology Ltd. (Elvie) was the original patent owner and counterclaimant, and the patents were later acquired by Willow Blossom Holdco Limited (see the Director's footnote in Paper 9: Willow Blossom acquired the patents from Chiaro after the petitions were filed), the identity and appearance status of district court counsel for the Willow entities on the '454/'381 patents is not something I could verify within my research budget. I found no confirmed appearance of Greenberg Traurig or any other firm for Willow in the W.D. Wash. docket. I will not name district court counsel for the Willow side, because I could not source it.
4. Recent development worth flagging (unconfirmed against the PTAB docket)
Law360 search results dated September 25, 2026 carry the summary: "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Friday ruled that all claims Shenzhen Root Technology Co. Ltd. challenged in a Willow Blossom wearable breast pump patent are invalid on numerous grounds." If accurate, that would correspond to a final written decision in IPR2025-00554 (institution was Oct. 14, 2025, so a Sept. 2026 FWD would be within the one-year statutory window). Note the tension: the case summary supplied to me states the FWD is still pending, and the Docket Alarm tracker shows "Trial Instituted" with no FWD entry. I could not open the primary PTAB/FWD document, so treat this as a reported but unverified development. If the FWD issued, Greenberg Traurig's appearance status would be unaffected (they remain counsel of record), but the outcome would be material.
Sources relied on
- Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, IPR2025-00554 (Paper 4) — via USPTO PTACTS:
ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557370/download-documents?... - Director Decision Referring the Petitions to the Board, IPR2025-00554 & IPR2025-00560 (Paper 9, July 17, 2025) — service lists; note 1 on Willow Blossom's acquisition of the patents.
- Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-00554 (Paper 10, Oct. 14, 2025) — docketalarm.com copy; party/service lists; § I.C district court reference.
- Docket Alarm docket sheet for IPR2025-00554 (
docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00554/...) - Greenberg Traurig bio for Heath J. Briggs (
gtlaw.com/professionals/b/briggs-heath-j); Chambers USA Colorado IP entry. - Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner's Discretionary Denial Brief (Paper 8, July 16, 2025) — W.D. Wash. docket/exhibit references.
- W.D. Wash. Order on Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadlines and Strike Trial Date, No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE; CourtListener docket for the same case; Law360 case page for Shenzhen Root v. Chiaro.
Caveats
- **