Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Rich material. Now let me pin down the exact asserted patents, the IPRs, and the corporate acquisition.

Now let me verify the IPR outcomes, claim construction results, and the ITC aftermath.

Case Overview & Background

The parties — two operating companies, not an NPE. Both sides are product companies in the wearable breast‑pump market, a fact that shapes everything about this case. Plaintiff Willow Innovations, Inc. (Mountain View, CA; CEO Sarah O'Leary) makes the Willow Pump, an in‑bra wearable breast pump, and is classified as a "product company" asserter in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database — i.e., this is a competitor‑v‑competitor fight, not a patent‑assertion‑entity campaign (Stanford NPE database, D977,625). Defendant Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie is a UK femtech company (Bristol HQ, founded 2013 by Tania Boler) that raised roughly $130–186M from BlackRock, Octopus Ventures and others and was once Europe's best‑funded femtech startup; its products include the Elvie Pump and Elvie Stride breast pumps and the Elvie Trainer (Sifted, Mar. 29, 2025; BusinessCloud, Mar. 28, 2025). Willow was represented principally by O'Melveny & Myers (Timothy Durst, Cason Cole, Carolyn Wall), with Asher Griffin appearing later in 2025 (Dkt. 173); Elvie by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Nirav Desai, Alex Alfano, et al.) with Gilliam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith) as local counsel.

The accused technology and the patents. Willow accused the Elvie Pump — a battery‑powered, hands‑free, in‑bra electric double breast pump — together with its companion mobile app (which tracks volume, pumping history and controls the pump), of infringement (Compl. ¶ 64). Willow's original complaint (Dkt. 1, May 24, 2023) asserted seven patents, and a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27, Sept. 12, 2023) added an eighth; by the time of claim construction the Court described the portfolio as six Willow utility patents plus two Willow design patents — U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,398,816; 10,434,228; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; D832,995; and D977,625 — with Elvie counterclaiming on its own U.S. Pat. No. 11,260,151 (Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157, at 1). Technical sketches, from the pleadings and the Court's Markman order: the '816 (and its specification‑mates '228 and '619) claims an in‑bra wearable pump whose shell houses a milk flow path, a fully internal pumping mechanism, a detachable fluid container, a rigid nipple‑receiving flange, and an "external computer" (the phone/app) that automatically tracks pumping; the '228 adds the milk flow path and collection container being contained within the housing; the '005 claims an automated system for controlling pumping cycles; the '624 covers a breast pump assembly with a breast adapter removable from a receptacle; the '229 is a breast pump system with flange/pressure‑sensor features; and D832,995 and D977,625 (issued Feb. 7, 2023, child of the '995) claim the ornamental design of a breast pump. Elvie's counterclaim patents covered a self‑contained in‑bra pump with rechargeable battery, USB charging socket, a diaphragm keeping milk out of the pump, and a detachable rigid milk container (the '380, U.S. Pat. No. 11,413,380) and a breast pump system/methods ('151). Willow also added a Lanham Act § 43(a) false‑advertising claim over Elvie's "silent" / "nobody will hear a thing" marketing (alleging the pump exceeds 31 dB), which the Court treated as part of the case through 2024. Sourcing note: the case metadata lists the patents at issue as 11,413,380, D977,625 and 10,668,229; the record I reviewed identifies the Willow utility patent as 10,688,229 (the "'229 Patent" in Dkt. 75 and Dkt. 157), so "10,668,229" appears to be a transcription variance. The '380 appears in the case as Elvie's counterclaim patent and is separately the subject of third‑party IPRs discussed below.

Posture, venue, and why the case matters. Filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with claim construction referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 74, Aug. 7, 2024) and a Markman hearing on Sept. 24, 2024; Judge Payne's Claim Construction Order issued Jan. 10, 2025 (Dkt. 157), resolving 11 groups of disputed terms, and the court appointed Michael Dean Paul as technical advisor (Dkt. 69). Venue rested on Elvie's U.S. retail channel — the complaint specifically pleaded that the Elvie Pump was in stock at the Walmart Supercenter in Marshall and at Target in Longview, plus Amazon, Costco and Best Buy (Compl. ¶ 11) — and the Gilstrap docket delivered its usual

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the docket details, PTAB proceedings, and the Markman order.

Now let me find PTAB petitions Elvie filed against Willow's patents, and details on the Markman order and stay.

Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG) — Legal Developments & Outcome

Bottom line: This case never reached trial. It was a two-front patent war (Willow's wearable-pump utility and design patents vs. Elvie's own portfolio) that was resolved not by verdict but by M&A: Willow bought Elvie's business and assets out of UK administration in March 2025, and the parties then stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in September 2025, each bearing its own costs. The only substantive court ruling on the merits was a September 2024 Rule 12(b)(6) order striking Elvie's trade dress counterclaim, plus a January 2025 claim construction order covering eleven disputed term groups.

Sourcing note: Docket numbering and dates below are drawn from the PACER docket text reproduced in PTAB filings (which attach the full E.D. Tex. docket sheet) and from the court opinions posted on Justia/CourtListener/Docket Alarm. Where I could not verify the substance of a ruling from a primary source — most importantly the individual claim constructions in Dkt. 157 — I say so rather than paraphrase.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2023-05-24 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Willow filed a 35 U.S.C. § 271 action against Chiaro Technology Ltd. d/b/a Elvie in Marshall, alleging infringement by the Elvie Pump and its companion mobile app. The complaint asserted seven U.S. patents (Dkt. 1; see Dkt. 90 at 1 n.1), spanning:

• Utility: U.S. 10,398,816; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,434,228; 10,722,624; 11,185,619
• Design: U.S. D832,995

Theories were direct, induced (§ 271(b)) and contributory (§ 271(c)) infringement, plus willfulness based on Elvie's status as a direct competitor and Willow's patent-notice webpage (Compl. ¶¶ 65–69). Willow pleaded venue through Elvie's DTC website and authorized retailers (Walmart, Target, Amazon, Costco, Best Buy), including a screenshot showing the Elvie Pump in stock at the Marshall Walmart Supercenter (Compl. ¶¶ 10–12) — the standard E.D. Tex. venue playbook. Jury demand filed (Dkt. 3); case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (2023-05-25).

2023 — Answer and Elvie counterclaims (Dkts. 15, 23). Elvie answered and counterclaimed on its own breast-pump portfolio; by amended answer (Dkt. 23) it asserted **

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Good initial docket data. Now let me pin down the full appearance list, roles, and the late-2025 change of counsel.

Let me pull the complaint signature block and the full appearance chronology.

Bottom line

Throughout the case, plaintiff Willow Innovations, Inc. was represented by O'Melveny & Myers LLP, with a ten-lawyer team drawn from OMM's New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and Dallas offices. In August 2025 — roughly a month before the case was dismissed — the entire OMM team withdrew (Dkt. 172, filed 8/11/2025) and Asher B. Griffin of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan entered an appearance (Dkt. 173, 8/18/2025). No in-house Willow attorney appeared on the docket. No counsel filed under seal in a way that obscures identity — the appearances are all public docket entries.

Important caveat on sourcing: PACER was not directly accessible for this research. The docket data below comes from a verbatim reproduction of the E.D. Tex. docket sheet that was filed as an exhibit in a related PTAB proceeding (IPR2024-00953, Ex. 2006), plus Docket Alarm and Patsnap litigation records. Document numbers and appearance dates are consistent across those sources. The docket does not formally designate a "lead counsel" in E.D. Tex.; role labels below are my inference from appearance order, office location, and filing behavior, and I flag them as such.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — O'Melveny & Myers LLP (May 2023 – Aug. 2025)

All ten were terminated as counsel of record by the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed August 11, 2025 (Dkt. 172), which the docket reflects as terminating Durst, Fountain, Gibson, Lee, Liu, Mackay, Shaffer, Wall, Burson, and Cole.

---

Replacement counsel (Aug. – Sept. 2025)

The case was then dismissed with prejudice on the parties' joint stipulation (Dkt. 175), with the court's order entered September 11, 2025 and the case closed September 12, 2025.

---

Context that may be useful

• No Willow in-house counsel appeared. The docket lists only outside counsel for Willow/counter-defendant Willow.
• Separate PTAB counsel. Willow's Patent Owner counsel in the IPRs was a different team — Greenberg Traurig LLP (Heath J. Briggs, Denver, lead; Trenton Ward, Atlanta; Benjamin Gilford, Minneapolis; Elana Araj and Emma Cohen, New York; Declan Stone-Murphy, Boston) — substituted in by motion in May 2025. That is the IPR representation, not the district court representation, and should not be conflated with the litigation team.
• Defendant's side (for symmetry): Chiaro/Elvie was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (Washington, D.C.) with Gilliam & Smith LLP (Melissa Richards Smith) as Texas local counsel.
• Non-counsel participant: the court appointed Michael Dean Paul (Michael D Paul, PLLC, San Antonio) as technical advisor — not counsel of record.
• Sealed material: several substantive filings were sealed (e.g., Dkt. 101, filed under seal 10/2/2024), but no attorney appearance or withdrawal in this case was sealed, so the counsel roster above should be complete.
• The case was stayed on February 3, 2025 on the parties' representation of a settlement of all matters in controversy, which explains the gap before the August 2025 substitution and September 2025 dismissal.

Primary sources: E.D. Tex. docket sheet for No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (reproduced as Ex. 2006 in IPR2024-00953, available via PTAB CTS: ptacts.uspto.gov); Docket Alarm case page (docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/); Law360 attorney profiles for Carolyn Wall and Robert F. Shaffer; Quinn Emanuel attorney bio (quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/griffin-asher/); Chambers USA profile for Asher Griffin; Reuters Legal, "Quinn Emanuel eyes growing patent docket with new Austin office" (Jan. 4, 2021).

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for the defendant.

Good initial results. Let me pull the full docket counsel listing and verify firms.

Let me verify a few individual attorneys and their firms.

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

Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Elvie was represented by a two-tier defense team: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (Washington, D.C.) as national/lead patent counsel, appearing pro hac vice, and Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas) as local counsel. Twelve Sterne Kessler attorneys entered appearances over the life of the case, with one withdrawal (Richa Patel, Aug. 2024) and two late additions (Tom Gorham, Sept. 2024; Donald Banowit, Sept. 2024). No in-house Elvie counsel appears on the docket.

Sourcing note: The roster below is derived from the CM/ECF docket sheet for 2:23-cv-00229-JRG as reproduced in full in PTAB petition papers (the petitions attach the complete E.D. Tex. docket sheet, including the "attorneys for defendant" block with firm addresses), plus signature blocks on filings retrieved via CourtListener/RECAP and Docket Alarm. I flag below the two or three points I could not verify to a primary source.

---

1. Roster

Local counsel (the E.D. Tex. filer of record)

Sterne Kessler — national/lead patent counsel (all Washington, D.C.; all pro hac vice except as noted)

---

2. Caveats and unverified items

• Tom Gorham's firm is not verified. The docket shows only "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham on behalf of Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie) (Gorham, Andrew) (Dkt. 94, 9/23/2024)." He does not appear in the Sterne Kessler signature blocks I reviewed, and I could not confirm whether he is Sterne Kessler, Elvie in-house, or another firm. Treat as "counsel of record, firm unconfirmed." I did not find an Elvie in-house lawyer appearing in this docket.
• Nicholas J. Nowak appears in aggregated litigation databases as Elvie counsel, but in the primary documents I reviewed his signature blocks are from the W.D. Wash. Momcozy litigation (No. 2:23-cv-00631), not from the E.D. Tex. docket sheet. I would not list him as counsel of record here without further confirmation.
• Role labels ("lead," "of counsel") are inferred, not stated on the docket. CM/ECF lists every Sterne Kessler attorney identically as "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED." The designations above reflect (a) who signed as Director/firm-side decisionmaker on correspondence (Josephine Kim), (b) ordering in signature blocks (Nirav Desai), and (c) who performed the in-court filing function (Melissa Smith). No formal "lead counsel" designation appears in the record I could access.
• No sealed/withheld appearances identified. Every name above is drawn from public docket text or public signature blocks. Nothing in the record suggests sealed counsel.

---

3. Structural observations

1. Classic E.D. Tex. split-counsel architecture. Sterne Kessler supplied substantive patent expertise and Elvie's patent portfolio counterclaim prosecution (the '380 patent and, per the docket, several Elvie patents); Gillam & Smith supplied the Marshall courtroom presence and did the CM/ECF filing. Notably, virtually all of Elvie's 2024–2025 summary-judgment and Daubert responses were filed under Melissa Smith's login (Dkts. 136–147), meaning the local counsel was functioning as filing counsel of record for merits briefing, not merely a service address.
2. The Sterne Kessler team was shared across Elvie's litigation portfolio. The same core group (Josephine Kim, Nirav Desai, Alex Alfano, Alexander Covington, Joseph Kim, Michael Webb, Paige Cloud, Zachary Jacobs, Christopher Coleman, Richa Patel) appears simultaneously for Chiaro in the W.D. Wash. Shenzhen Root/Momcozy v. Chiaro case (No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE) — a relevant data point for how Elvie staffed its 2023–2025 patent war.
3. Lead-counsel continuity through settlement. The dismissal paperwork was handled by Melissa Smith (Dkt. 175, 9/10/2025), and no substitution of counsel for Elvie appears on the docket in the final months — i.e., the same team closed the case it opened in 2023.

---

4. Contradiction flags against earlier sections / metadata

• Termination date. Metadata says terminated 2025-09-11; the docket shows the dismissal order was signed 9/11/2025 but entered 9/12/2025 (Dkt. 176), with the AO-120 form filed 9/12/2025 (Dkt. 177). Docket Alarm also reports "Terminated Sept. 12, 2025."