US 10625005

I'll verify the current status and check for any 2026 litigation activity before summarizing.

Let me pull the actual claim set and check for active litigation.

Let me check for IPR proceedings, ITC actions, and the exact claim language.

Verification note

I searched for the literal identifier 10625005 / US 10,625,005 B2 and excluded look-alike numbers (e.g., US 10,625,176, US 10,688,229, US 11,260,151). No alphanumeric identifiers below have been auto-corrected. Where I could not obtain authoritative text, I say so.

Bibliographic data (US 10,625,005 B2)

Priority chain (per the patent's own "Cross-Reference to Related Applications"): a continuation of US 16/050,201 (filed Jul. 31, 2018); a continuation of PCT/US17/17112 (filed Feb. 9, 2017), which claims priority to provisionals 62/450,528, 62/442,008, 62/421,263 and 62/293,480; and a continuation-in-part of US 15/708,771 (filed Sep. 19, 2017), itself a continuation of US 15/180,420 (filed Jun. 13, 2016, now US 10,525,176), which is a continuation of PCT/US15/041257 (filed Jul. 21, 2015), claiming priority to provisional 62/027,685 (filed Jul. 22, 2014).

Ownership transfers of record (as listed): Exploramed NC7 → Willow Innovations, Inc. (change of name, Dec. 8, 2020); security interests recorded in favor of Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP (Sep. 17, 2020; released Sep. 9, 2022) and Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP (Sep. 9, 2022), later assigned to Madryn Fund Administration, LLC (Jan. 11, 2024).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Systems and methods for pumping milk from a breast, wherein the milk is expressed from the breast under suction and milk is expulsed from the pumping mechanism to a collection container under positive pressure."

Plain-language overview

The patent is a continuation in the Willow/ExploraMed NC7 wearable breast pump family. The disclosed device is a small, in-bra, battery-powered pump in which a flexible conduit ("flex-tube") is cyclically compressed and released by motor-driven compression members/paddles; suction pulls milk from the breast, and positive pressure (spec stated as ~20–40 mmHg, typically ~25 mmHg) pushes milk through a one-way valve into a collection bag. A controller reads a non-contact load-cell sensor and adjusts paddle position/speed in real time against a target vacuum waveform, with stated latch vacuum ~60 mmHg (range ~20–100 mmHg) and peak vacuum ~200 mmHg.

What distinguishes this particular continuation is the "remote interface" subject matter: the spec describes a language protocol enabling two-way live and historical data exchange between the pump and an external device (Wi‑Fi, BLUETOOTH, BTLE, RFID, NFC), session start/end time and volume tracking, user profiles, reminders, power-management threads and hierarchy (hibernate / standby / standby-with-LEDs / active), and app-driven control features.

Independent claims — important caveat

I do not have authoritative claim text for this patent. The patent text supplied to me is truncated before the claims section, and my searches returned the specification and the litigation's characterization of the claims rather than the claims themselves. Treat the following as grounded-but-incomplete, not as a verbatim claim reading.

What is reliably grounded is how Willow characterized claim 1 in the complaint in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd.

• Claim 1 is described as directed to a breast pump with (i) a wireless transmitter, (ii) a "language protocol for two-way communication between the breast pump and an external device," and (iii) a "remote user interface including user control functionality" and "an input for the human to adjust the breast pump with the external device" (cited to '005 Patent, claim 1 at col. 28:25–41; "user control functionality" at 28:33–34).

Beyond claim 1, the specification's Summary section recites four stated "aspects," which typically track the independent claims of this family; I could not confirm which of these are claimed independently here, or how many independent claims exist:

1. A system comprising a skin contact member/flange forming a seal with the breast, a conduit connected to it, a driving mechanism establishing a vacuum profile, an external shell with a compartment receiving the skin contact member/conduit/driving mechanism, a milk collection container positionable within the shell, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium; the system contoured to the breast.
2. A system comprising a flange/skin contact member, a conduit, a driving mechanism establishing a vacuum profile by cyclically compressing and allowing decompression of a portion of the conduit, and an external shell containing the conduit and driving mechanism and supporting the skin contact member.
3. A method of operating a milk-pumping system: sealing the skin contact member to the breast, operating the driving mechanism to generate predetermined pressure cycles, monitoring compression-member position and/or speed, measuring/calculating conduit pressure, and maintaining or modifying compression-member motion based on pressure plus force/position/speed feedback.
4. A system with compression member, sensor and controller performing the same closed-loop pressure-cycle control.

If you need verbatim claim language, pull it from the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search full-text (or the granted-PDF claims at col. 28 onward) rather than relying on this summary.

Litigation status

District court — confirmed. The '005 patent is asserted in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie), No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed May 24, 2023. The '005 patent is Count III of the complaint (willful direct infringement, plus induced infringement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) alleged against the Elvie Pump and its companion mobile app). In the Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 157), following a September 24, 2024 Markman hearing, the court listed Willow's asserted patents as US 10,398,816; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,434,228; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; and design patents D832,995 and D977,625, with Elvie counterclaiming on US 11,260,151. Docket activity continued into 2025 (jury selection was scheduled for March 17, 2025 as of the IPR briefing), and the docket shows claim-narrowing and case-management orders through 2024.

CAFC 2026 dockets — none found. My targeted search for a Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 involving 10625005 returned zero results. I therefore have no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal from this patent. That is a negative search result, not a certification that no appeal exists (e.g., a late-2025 judgment could yield a 2026 appeal captioned without the patent number).

PTAB — none found on this patent. The IPRs I located in the parties' disputes are directed elsewhere — e.g., IPR2024-01296 and IPR2025-00554/US 11,806,454 (Shenzhen Root Technology v. Willow Blossom Holdco / Willow Innovations). I found no IPR or PGR petition against US 10,625,005.

Uncertainty flags

• The claim text above is from a litigation pleading's characterization, not the patent's claim set; independent-claim count and exact wording are unverified.
• Google Patents' "Prior art date 2014‑07‑22" and "anticipated expiration 2035‑07‑15" are assumptions by the source, not legal conclusions — the '005 patent is a later-filed continuation/CIP, so its actual effective priority date for any given claim may differ.
• I found no CAFC 2026 activity; I cannot rule out an appeal that my searches did not surface.

I'll run targeted searches on the specific patent number and the litigation databases.

Strong results on the first case. Let me search for additional suits and any appeal.

Now let me check the NPE litigation database entry for this exact patent and whether any other suits name it.

Litigation involving US 10,625,005 B2

I searched for the literal patent number 10625005 / US 10,625,005 B2 (excluding look-alikes). One and only one litigation asserts this patent. No IPR/PGR petition and no Federal Circuit appeal naming it were found.

Case 1 (only known case)

How the '005 patent featured in the case

• The '005 patent was one of the patents Willow asserted. The court's claim-construction record lists Willow's asserted patents as US 10,398,816; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,434,228; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; and design patents D832,995 and D977,625, with Elvie counterclaiming on US 11,260,151. The '005 patent was filed as Exhibit C to Willow's opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 75, 8/8/2024): ptacts.uspto.gov filing. The prior section's description of the case (Count III, willfulness plus §271(b)/(c)) is consistent with what I found; I did not independently re-verify the count numbering in the complaint.
• Markman: hearing September 24, 2024; Claim Construction Order issued January 10, 2025 (Dkt. No. 157) — per Chiaro's mandatory notices in a related PTAB proceeding: ptacts.uspto.gov.
• Summary judgment on the '005 patent specifically: Willow filed a sealed motion for summary judgment that US 10,625,005 is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Dkt. 127, with reply Dkt. 153 filed 1/6/2025). Other dispositive motions included Elvie's non-infringement motion on the asserted Elvie patents (Dkt. 129), no pre-suit damages (Dkt. 123), marking/§287 (Dkt. 122), and no willful infringement (Dkt. 131). See Docket Alarm docket sheet.

Outcome / current status

• February 3, 2025 — the court stayed all deadlines after the parties notified it they had reached a "settlement of all matters in controversy between the Parties related thereto." The Feb. 10, 2025 pretrial conference and March 17, 2025 jury selection/trial were cancelled. (This is confirmed in Chiaro's PTAB mandatory notices: source.)
• September 10, 2025 — Joint Stipulation of Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE (Dkt. 175).
• September 11/12, 2025 — Order dismissing case with prejudice (Dkt. 176) and AO 120 form (Dkt. 177). Docket Alarm records the case Terminated Sept. 12, 2025, flags CLOSED / STAYED. Docket Alarm
• Net effect: the case ended by settlement and voluntary dismissal with prejudice. There was no judgment on the merits, no infringement or invalidity ruling on the '005 patent, no damages award, and no injunction. The §103 summary-judgment motion on the '005 patent was never decided.

What is not known / negative results

• No Federal Circuit appeal involving the '005 patent. My searches for a 2025–2026 CAFC appeal returned nothing. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation and no judgment was entered on the '005 patent, any appeal would be unlikely (a stipulated dismissal generally isn't appealable absent reserved issues).
• No IPR or PGR against US 10,625,005. The PTAB proceedings I located in adjacent disputes are directed to Elvie's own patents — e.g., IPR2024-01296 and IPR2025-00554, in Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. (Momcozy) v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash.) — which does not involve the '005 patent. Note that the Momcozy/Elvie W.D. Wash. case was resolved by a consent judgment (joint stipulated motion filed with a Jan. 5, 2026 calendar note): archive.org courtlistener PDF. Willow is not a party to that case.
• No ITC Section 337 action naming the '005 patent was found.
• Foreign litigation: Google Patents links the '005 family to a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" entry, but the only US case it surfaces is the same E.D. Tex. action. I found no foreign case asserting this specific US patent. (The UK judgment Chiaro Technology v. Mayborn [2023] EWHC 2417 (Pat) concerns registered designs, not the '005 patent, and Willow is not a party.)

Flags on the previously generated sections

1. Contradiction resolved (not a conflict): the prior section said "Docket activity continued into 2025 (jury selection scheduled for March 17, 2025)." Confirmed — but the trial was cancelled and the case is now dismissed with prejudice as of September 2025. The prior section's open question about 2026 activity is now answered: none found. This update supersedes the "continuation into 2025" framing in the earlier section.
2. The prior section's uncertainty about the exact Markman order date is resolved: hearing 9/24/2024, order Dkt. 157 on 1/10/2025.
3. Date caveat: the task states the current date as April 26, 2026, whereas my search environment reports September 28, 2026. Either way, all case events above are from the public docket and the case terminated September 12, 2025. I found no activity after that date.
4. Caveat on completeness: my searches covered Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/archive.org dockets, PTAB PTACTS filings, and general web search restricted to the literal number 10625005. A 2026 filing that does not yet index the patent number, or a sealed/local-counsel-only filing, would not be surfaced by these tools. This is a negative search result, not a certification of no other litigation.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,625,005: 0. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent, and my independent searches corroborate that: zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained, zero settlements, zero institution denials — because no petition has ever been filed. The defensive posture this creates is the least comforting of the possible outcomes: the patent is completely untested at the Board, so there is no FWD to lean on, no claim cancellations to point to, and no petitioner estoppel to exploit. Any defendant today would be the first to challenge it, and would be paying full freight with no roadmap.

What the absence does not mean. "No PTAB activity" is not the same as "no invalidity fight." The '005 patent was squarely in the crosshairs of the E.D. Tex. case — Willow itself moved for summary judgment that the '005 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Dkt. 127, filed 2024-12-13; Elvie's sealed response Dkt. 135, filed 2024-12-27). That motion was never decided; the case settled and was dismissed with prejudice on 2025-09-10/12. So the patent's validity was litigated up to the eve of Markman-to-trial but never adjudicated on the merits, and never tested at the PTAB at all.

No proceedings to itemize

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, and I could not surface anything to contradict it. Per the task's instruction not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not generating placeholder entries. Recording this plainly: no IPR20XX-XXXXX number exists for US 10,625,005 as of 2026-09-28.

Search coverage (negative results, stated as such): I searched PTAB PTACTS document repositories, Docket Alarm's PTAB case index, the USPTO ODP-derived structured block supplied in this prompt, and web search restricted to the literal strings 10625005, 10,625,005, and "005 Patent" paired with IPR, PGR, CBM, reexamination, and institution. Nothing returned a trial proceeding against this patent. A sealed or very-recently-filed petition not yet indexed would not be surfaced — this is a negative search result, not a certification.

Adjacent PTAB activity — real, but against different patents

This is the trap to avoid. There is a large, active PTAB war in the wearable-breast-pump space, and it is easy to misread it as touching the '005 patent. It does not. Every AIA trial I located is directed at Chiaro/Elvie's patents (Elvie is the patent owner in those proceedings), with Shenzhen Root Technology (Momcozy) as petitioner:

Two points of leverage fall out of this:

1. Posture inversion. In the Willow–Chiaro case Elvie was the accused infringer; in the Momcozy case Elvie is the asserting patent owner defending at the PTAB. Willow is not a party to the Momcozy/Elvie proceedings, and no Willow patent — including the '005 patent — has been petitioned there.
2. Prior-art runway exists. The Momcozy petitions marshal a deep field of wearable-pump art (Chang, Khalil, Myers, Weber, Guthrie, Makower, Fang, Park and others) against very closely related Elvie claims. Those references are publicly charted, limitation-by-limitation, at PTACTS. None of that art has ever been applied to the '005 claims — which means it is both (a) available, and (b) untested against this patent's priority chain.

Related-but-not-PTAB enforcement (context for a defendant)

• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1522, instituted 2026-09-21 on a complaint filed 2026-08-20 by Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. against Shenzhen Root Innovation and twelve other respondents. Notably, the '005 patent is not asserted. The asserted patents are US 11,660,380, US 12,370,292, D1,053,344, US 11,813,388, and D1,031,993 — see the Federal Register notice, 91 FR 60645. Willow's 2026 enforcement campaign runs through newer continuations, design patents, and the ITC — not through the '005 patent.
• Willow § 287 notice page lists the '005 patent among products-practicing patents (last updated 2025-10-31 per the page as indexed), which matters for marking/damages theories, not for PTAB.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,625,005. Every claim is UNTESTED. There are no canceled claims, no sustained claims, no narrowed claims, and no certificate issuing from any AIA trial. The full claim set as granted on 2020-04-21 stands exactly as it issued. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: you face the patent at its original, unamended breadth, but you also get a clean slate with no adverse FWD reasoning to overcome and no Patent Owner amendment history to work around.

Cross-reference update to the earlier section — claim text uncertainty now largely resolved. The prior section flagged that it lacked verbatim claim text and that independent-claim count was unverified. Willow's complaint in Willow v. Chiaro reproduces Claim 1 of the '005 patent in full (Compl. ¶ 87). It is a long, system claim with limitations [1a]–[1q], including: a breast pump configured to fit within a bra with a chassis, outer shell, pump mechanism, battery, circuit board and sensor between shell and chassis; a removable breast contacting structure with a nipple receiving portion below the pump mechanism; a milk collection container; two drivers displacing a flexible member to generate vacuum; a wireless transmitter transmitting a Bluetooth Low Energy signal containing milk volume collected data; a chip tracking usage sessions; a language protocol for two-way communication between the breast pump and an external device; a remote user interface including user control functionality; internal pump memory within a chip with the transmitter sending pumped milk volume to the external device which displays the pumped milk volume of each breast; and an input for the human to adjust the breast pump with the external device. Two caveats: (i) this is the plaintiff's quotation in a pleading, not a certified copy of the printed claim — pull the granted-PDF text at col. 28 onward to confirm; (ii) the earlier section's characterization of claim 1 via the litigation (wireless transmitter + language protocol + remote UI) is consistent with the complaint's verbatim text, so no contradiction. The practical read is that claim 1 is a narrow, heavily-accumulated software/connectivity claim rather than a bare mechanical pump claim — which both narrows the infringement net and gives a petitioner many more limitation-specific hooks for art-based attack.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone on this patent. There is no petitioner-privity chain to check, no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar, and no Printed Publication / prior-art combination that is off the table. Conversely, the § 315(b) one-year clock has already run for Chiaro/Elvie (served 2023-05-24; window closed ~2024-05-24) — but Chiaro's practical exposure ended with the stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2025-09-10, so that bar is now mostly academic. For a new defendant served today, § 315(b) starts fresh: file within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '005 patent.

Pattern signals. Willow is a serial, aggressive enforcer across the family (E.D. Tex. against Elvie; ITC 337-TA-1522 in 2026; § 287 notice program), but has shown no appetite for PTAB defense — it has never had to defend the '005 patent at the Board. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in this patent's chain; the only PTAB petitioners in this technology space are commercial adversaries (Momcozy), and they petitioned Elvie's patents, not Willow's. That asymmetry is unusual and worth weighing: well-asserted Willow patents have attracted zero IPR petitions despite three-plus years of active district-court and ITC assertion.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted on US 10,625,005:

1. You have no FWD to cite — say so, and do not cite one. There is no claim-cancellation to lean on and no estoppel to inherit. Do not build a defense brief that implies otherwise. Confirm the empty state yourself at PTAB E2E / PTACTS and the ODP API before relying on this analysis.
2. File within one year of service (§ 315(b)). With no prior petition, you are the first mover. Note the statutory clock on the back end: institution decision ~6 months from filing, FWD within 18 months of institution — i.e., a petition filed 2026-09-28 would draw a FWD in roughly mid-2028 absent joinder or extension.
3. Attack the claim-1 accumulation, not the pump. Claim 1's weight-bearing limitations are the connectivity/software stack — BTLE transmission of milk volume collected data, a language protocol for two-way communication, internal pump memory within a chip, and a remote UI that displays the pumped milk volume of each breast — layered on top of a two-driver flex-tube mechanism. That layering makes the priority-date question (2014-07-22 vs. the 2017 provisional chain vs. the 2018/2019 CIP filings) a live § 102/§ 103 lever, because the "remote interface" subject matter may not enjoy the earliest date. The prior section's caveat that Google Patents' 2014-07-22 "prior art date" is a source assumption applies with full force here.
4. Reuse the Momcozy art set, but re-chart it from scratch. Chang, Khalil, Myers, Weber, Guthrie, Makower and their relatives were assembled against Elvie's claims with different limitations and a different priority date. They are a starting library, not a plug-in. The Momcozy petition papers are public at PTACTS.
5. Consider the reexam/EPR route in parallel for the connectivity claims. Momcozy used an ex parte reexamination as a cheap second front against Elvie's '893 patent. I found no reexamination record for the '005 patent, but the ODP block supplied here covers AIA trials, not reexams — verify reexam status independently via Patent Public Search / the reexam certificate database before concluding none exists.
6. Watch the ITC as a procedural wedge. 337-TA-1522 (instituted 2026-09-21) does not assert the '005 patent. If Willow later adds the '005 patent to an ITC complaint, the interplay between the ITC target date and any IPR FWD creates discretionary-denial arguments that cut for a petitioner under the current Fintiv-successor guidance — the mirror image of the arguments Chiaro successfully ran against Momcozy.

If you are advising a patent owner (Willow): the empty PTAB docket is the single strongest thing about this patent's enforcement posture — it is un-narrowed, un-estopped, and its claim 1 has never been construed by the Board, only by Judge Gilstrap's court (Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157, 2025-01-10), and that construction order should be checked for whether it addressed any term of claim 1 or of the other independent claims.

Uncertainty flags

• Absence-of-proceedings is a negative search result. I cannot certify that no petition exists; a sealed or freshly-docketed petition may not yet be indexed. Re-verify at PTAB E2E and the ODP API before filing or relying.
• Claim 1's text above is quoted from a complaint (a secondary source), not from a certified copy of the printed patent. The prior section's inability to verify the claims section from the supplied full text stands.
• Independent-claim count remains unverified. The complaint recites only claim 1 of the '005 patent as an example; it does not tell us how many independent claims exist or what claims 2+ recite.
• Date discrepancy unresolved. The task states 2026-04-26; my search environment reports 2026-09-28. I have dated all events from the underlying sources.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,625,005, starting with the recordings visible in the patent's legal events and hunting for reel/frame numbers and correspondents.

Let me hunt for the specific reel/frame numbers and correspondents recorded in the assignment database.

The assignment database isn't directly indexed. Let me try IPR/litigation exhibits, which often reproduce USPTO assignment records with reel/frame numbers.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,625,005 B2

Access limitation, stated up front (important): I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center's backend. assignmentcenter.uspto.gov and assignment.uspto.gov are JavaScript applications whose record pages are not indexed by search engines, and my searches returned only the patent's Google Patents legal-events feed (which mirrors recorded reassignment data) — not the assignment abstracts themselves. As a result:

• I obtained the events, dates, conveyance types, assignors and assignees (from the patent's own legal-events record, which is drawn from USPTO assignment data).
• I did NOT obtain any reel/frame number, execution date, or correspondent of record for any recording. Every reel/frame and correspondent field below is marked NOT OBTAINED. I will not guess them. You should pull them directly from the Assignment Center search for patent 10,625,005 to complete this record — that is a five-minute lookup I could not perform with the tools available.

Inventors

Grounding: Inventor addresses for Chang, Mason and Co are taken from the sibling design filing US D856,507 S ("Container assembly for a breast pump," ExploraMed NC7, Inc., filed Jun. 23, 2016 — inventors Mason, Co, Chang). Makower's role is grounded in his Stanford faculty profile, which lists him as "Executive Chairman & Founder, Willow Innovations, (2014–present)" and links him to "United States Patent 10,722,624 Breast pump assembly with breast adapter, ExplorMed NC7, Inc." — a sibling patent in this same family.

Pattern notes:

• No departing-inventor pattern. This is an incubator-captive inventor group: the inventor set (Makower, Chang, Mason, Co) recurs across multiple ExploraMed NC7 filings (e.g., US D856,507; US 10,722,624), and ExploraMed/Willow and Makower are the same control group. There is no evidence any named inventor assigned his rights elsewhere within 12 months of filing, and no third-party or university co-owner ever appears in the chain.
• Notable non-event: Makower is a Stanford professor, yet no Stanford assignment appears anywhere in the chain and Stanford is not an assignee of record. That is consistent with the invention arising in the ExploraMed NC7 venture rather than in his academic role, but I flag it because it is the only institutional-employer question in this chain.
• Caveat: I have no employment records. "Employer at filing" for Chang, Mason, Co, Calmer and Sabet is inferred from the assignee-of-record being ExploraMed NC7 and from the pattern of co-filing, not from documented employment agreements. Calmer and Sabet remain unmatched to a verified employer.

Original assignee

ExploraMed NC7, Inc., 1975 W. El Camino Real, Suite 306, Mountain View, CA 94040.

• Line of business: an operating medical-device company — the Willow venture of the ExploraMed incubator. It is not a holding or licensing vehicle.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — and the '005 "remote interface" claims map onto its own product. FDA 510(k) K191577 (issued Aug. 7, 2019, to ExploraMed NC7, Inc., contact Steve Holmes, Chief Product Officer) cleared the "Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0" and expressly describes the cleared modification set as including "inclusion of Bluetooth for connection to an optional mobile app" and "BLE connectivity with an optional Mobile App." That app-connected pump is precisely the subject matter of the '005 claims as characterized in Willow's own complaint (wireless transmitter; language protocol for two-way communication between the breast pump and an external device; remote user interface with user control functionality). The predicate device, ExploraMed NC7's "Athena Breast Pump," was cleared under K161266.
• Current status: operating, and it is the same entity as the current assignee. It was not acquired, dissolved, or bankrupt. On Dec. 8, 2020 it recorded a Change of Name to Willow Innovations, Inc. — a name change only, which the USPTO can only have effected if the same legal entity continued. Willow Innovations, Inc. remains active and is the plaintiff in the 2023 E.D. Tex. action against Elvie (dismissed with prejudice Sept. 2025) and in a §337 ITC complaint filed Aug. 20, 2026 (Docket No. 3932, instituted Sept. 21, 2026) against Shenzhen Root / Lute / Horigen / Anker and others.

Assignment timeline

All reel/frame numbers and correspondents below are NOT OBTAINED. Dates are the recording/event dates surfaced in the legal-events record; I could not retrieve the separate "date executed" fields. All events are recorded against this patent; I found no unrecorded or side-letter transfer.

• Recorded 2020-09-17 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (collateral assignment to a lender as administrative agent)
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED — cannot assess the repeat-correspondent signal. This is the single most valuable field to retrieve from the Assignment Center, because the Perceptive and Madryn recordings are the only non-routine entries in this chain.
  • Context: securitization — venture-debt collateral, not a transfer of title.

• Recorded 2020-12-08 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (USPTO text: "CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED
  • Context: change of name only — the same corporate entity rebranding; no change in beneficial ownership.

• Recorded 2022-09-09 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc. (formerly ExploraMed NC7, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED
  • Context: securitization release — Perceptive's collateral lien discharged (refinancing).

• Recorded 2022-09-09 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (new collateral grant)
  • Assignor: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Assignee: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED
  • Context: securitization — replacement venture-debt collateral, same day as the Perceptive release (a refinancing pair). Madryn is a healthcare-focused credit asset manager, not a patent monetizer.

• Recorded 2024-01-11 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Security Interest in Patents (administrative reassignment of the collateral agent role)
  • Assignor: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Assignee: Madryn Fund Administration, LLC
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED
  • Context: securitization — administrative housekeeping of the existing lien into the Madryn fund-administration entity; no title change.

• Not surfaced in the legal-events feed (must be confirmed): the inventors → ExploraMed NC7, Inc. assignment. It is not in the post-issuance reassignment feed because it predates grant, but it necessarily exists: the printed patent names ExploraMed NC7, Inc. as assignee, and Willow's complaint pleads that "By assignment, duly recorded with the USPTO, Willow owns all substantial rights" to its asserted patents. Reel/frame and correspondent NOT OBTAINED; this is the second lookup worth doing.

Net count: 5 recorded post-issuance events, of which 4 are financing/collateral paperwork and 1 is a pure name change. Zero transfers of beneficial title occurred after issuance.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10625005
    2014 : Priority date
    2019 : Continuation filed by ExploraMed NC7
    2020 : Patent issued
         : Security agreement to Perceptive Credit
         : Name change to Willow Innovations
    2022 : Perceptive release recorded
         : Security interest to Madryn
    2023 : Willow sues Elvie in E D Texas
    2024 : Madryn security interest reassigned
    2025 : Elvie case dismissed
    2026 : Willow files ITC complaint

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No recorded link moves the patent from the operating company to a licensing-only LLC. The only post-issuance "assignee" names are a credit fund acting as administrative agent (Perceptive, 2020-09-17; Madryn, 2022-09-09) and a fund administrator (Madryn Fund Administration, 2024-01-11) — each recorded as a security interest or release, expressly not a conveyance of title. The remaining link (2020-12-08) is a Change of Name, which the USPTO records only where the same legal entity continues. Willow Innovations holds the title throughout and ships product.

• Watch item, marked UNCLUEBER for THIS patent: A "Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd." appears alongside Willow Innovations as a named patent owner / real party in interest in IPR2025-00554 (US 11,806,454) and as a co-complainant in the Aug. 20, 2026 ITC complaint. That suggests an IP-holding affiliate exists in the Willow family. I found no recorded assignment of US 10,625,005 to Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. Treat the '005 as still titled in Willow Innovations unless the Assignment Center shows otherwise — and if a transfer to a Blossom holdco did record, note that it is a wholly owned affiliate of the same operating group, not a third-party NPE.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee, prior or current, appears on the Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp or Spangenberg rosters, and none has been surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff. The counterparties here are a venture lender (Perceptive) and a healthcare credit fund (Madryn), both of which take security interests in many operating medtech companies and are not patent asserters. Willow Innovations itself is a serial asserting operating company (2023 Elvie suit; 2026 ITC action) but is not on any NPE list.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — CANNOT ASSESS (data not obtained). The correspondent field was unavailable for every recording. This is the signal most likely to be missed by an incomplete record, so I am flagging it as unresolved rather than absent. The specific thing to look for: whether the same attorney/firm filed both the Perceptive (2020-09-17) and Madryn (2022-09-09/2024-01-11) recordings. That would be entirely expected for a refinancing handled by one lender-side or company-side firm, and would not by itself be an NPE tell — recurrence in this chain would be consistent with routine secured financing.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There is no chained-LLC cascade. The apparent density (five recordings in ~3.4 years) resolves entirely into two financing cycles: Perceptive (grant 2020 → release 2022) and Madryn (grant 2022 → agent reassignment 2024). Assignee names in the financing links are affiliated with one another by design (Madryn Health Partners II → Madryn Fund Administration), which is housekeeping, not a shell chain. No two successive recordings move title through unrelated entities.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The patent was asserted by the entity that already owned it. Willow sued Elvie on May 24, 2023; the nearest prior recording is 2022-09-09, roughly eight months earlier — and it is a security interest, not a conveyance. No title transfer sits within six months of suit, and no transfer was made to set venue. The 2020-12-08 name change predates the suit by 2.5 years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving ExploraMed NC7 or Willow Innovations was found, and no sale of this patent in a bankruptcy proceeding. The secured-lender recordings are ordinary venture debt against a going concern, and the Perceptive lien was released (2022-09-09) rather than foreclosed.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not end at an NPE asserting on the operating company's behalf. Willow asserts its own patents in its own name (and with its own affiliate as co-plaintiff), and the accused products — the Elvie Pump and, in the ITC action, Shenzhen Root/Lute, Horigen, Anker and others — are competitor products in Willow's own market.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. Owner: Willow Innovations, Inc. (operating).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Willow Innovations, Inc. — the renamed ExploraMed NC7, Inc. (change of name recorded 2020-12-08) — remains the owner of record of US 10,625,005 and is an operating medical-device company that ships the accused-patent-embodying product: the BLE/app-connected Willow Wearable Breast Pump, cleared by FDA 510(k) K191577 (Aug. 2019), whose cleared functionality is the very "remote interface / two-way communication with an external device" subject matter of the '005 claims. The other four recorded events — security agreement to Perceptive Credit Holdings III (2020-09-17), release (2022-09-09), security interest to Madryn Health Partners II (2022-09-09) and reassignment of that security interest to Madryn Fund Administration (2024-01-11) — are collateral and refinancing paperwork, not transfers of title, and no title ever left the operating company. The patent was asserted by its owner against a direct product competitor (Elvie, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229) and the Willow group continues to assert its wearables portfolio, including in a §337 ITC action filed August 20, 2026 (though note the '005 patent is not among the five patents asserted in that ITC complaint).

Two caveats that could change this verdict, both requiring the Assignment Center lookup I could not perform: (a) if a recorded assignment exists transferring the '005 to Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. — an affiliate name that appears as a patent owner in IPR2025-00554 and as co-complainant in the 2026 ITC action — the chain includes an intra-group IP-holding entity, which is still an operating-group asset but worth documenting; and (b) if the correspondent of record on the Perceptive and Madryn recordings proves to be a name that recurs across unrelated NPE families, that would be a genuine anomaly given the otherwise clean operating-company record. Absent either, this is a straightforward operating-company assertion, not an NPE chain.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ ; legacy assignment search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 10625005 and pull reel/frame + correspondent for the five recordings above). Case docket for the only suit asserting this patent: Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.), dismissed with prejudice Sept. 2025.

Cross-reference flags against the earlier sections

1. Consistent, no contradiction: the earlier sections' "Current assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc." and the listed ownership transfers match the legal-events record exactly, including the Perceptive release and the Madryn recordings.
2. New information not in the earlier sections: (i) the 2020-12-08 event is specifically a Change of Name (not an asset transfer), which is the key fact that makes the ExploraMed NC7 → Willow succession a non-signal for NPE purposes; (ii) Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. is a previously unmentioned affiliate appearing as patent owner in IPR2025-00554 and as ITC co-complainant in 2026; (iii) the Aug. 20, 2026 ITC complaint and its Sept. 21, 2026 institution post-date the earlier sections' "no activity after September 2025" negative finding — that finding remains correct for the '005 patent specifically, since the ITC action asserts US 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; and D1,031,993, not the '005.
3. Date caveat carried forward: the surrounding material gives two different "today" dates (Apr. 26, 2026 vs. Sept. 28, 2026). The ITC institution date of Sept. 21, 2026 is only coherent under the later date, so I am treating the environment date (2026-09-28) as operative.
4. Completeness caveat: because the reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be retrieved, signals 3 is reported as unassessable, not absent, and the inventors→ExploraMed NC7 assignment is reported as inferred from the patent face and the complaint pleading, not from a record I read. Neither of these is a "no records" finding — the USPTO plainly has records for this patent, and I am telling you exactly which fields I could not reach.

I'll search for the patent's citation records — both the references cited against it (examiner/IDS citations) and related art.

Let me pull the actual citation records directly from the patent's own pages.

Let me try to pull the granted patent's front-page "References Cited" list directly.

Scope, method and confidence

I searched for the literal string 10625005 / US 10,625,005 B2 and actively excluded look-alikes that surface in the same family and litigation cluster — US 10,525,176 (the '005's own parent, cited in the '005 priority chain as "U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/525,176"), US 10,625,151, US 10,625,176, US 10,688,229, US 11,260,151, US 10,561,770, US 11,951,238 and US 11,400,189. No identifier below has been auto-corrected.

Important limitation, stated up front: I could not retrieve the granted patent's own front-page (56) References Cited table from the USPTO full-text record for application 16/666,895. What follows is built from the citation tables published for the pre-grant publication US 2020/0061265 A1 (which maps 1:1 to the '005 patent; Google Patents) plus forward-citation records on third-party patents. Treated literally, that record is extremely sparse — which is itself the headline finding. I flag where that sparsity may be an artifact.

1. The citation record on US 10,625,005 B2

Source for the "Patent Citations (2)" and "Cited By (1)" tables: patents.google.com/patent/US20200061265A1.

Additional forward citations of the '005 appear in third-party design patents — USD985113 (Babypape Inc.) and USD967398 (Gong) each list "10625005 | April 21, 2020 | Chang" in their Referenced Cited lists (Justia D985113; D967398) — and in Willow's own later US 11,951,238 (Justia). These are forward citations only.

Analytical significance: the '005 was filed 2019‑10‑29 and granted 2020‑04‑21 — roughly six months, with no examiner-cited U.S. patent art appearing in the published citation table. That is the signature of a continuation allowed essentially on the parent's prosecution record, not a merits search. The prior "Patent summary" section's caveat about claim text is consistent with this: the sparse citation record is a procedural fact, and it is not evidence that the claimed subject matter is novel.

2. Reference-by-reference §102 analysis

2.1 US 2016/0287769 A1 — "Breast pump system and methods" (Exploramed NC7, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0287769 A1, published Oct. 6, 2016; earliest priority listed as Jul. 22, 2014; applicant/original assignee Exploramed NC7, Inc.
• Description: A wearable, in-bra breast pump in which a flexible conduit is cyclically compressed and released by motor-driven compression members; closed-loop pressure control of the compression member against a target vacuum waveform; non-contact (load-cell-type) pressure sensing; milk expelled under positive pressure through a one-way valve into a collection container. In substance this is the same disclosure that occupies columns 1–25 of the '005 (FIGS. 1A–21) — the two are siblings from the same 2014/2015 disclosure set.
• §102 exposure:
  • §102(a)(1): not available on the face of the record. Its publication date (2016‑10‑06) post-dates the '005's listed 2014‑07‑22 priority date, so it was not "patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use" before the '005's effective filing date if the '005 claims are entitled to that date.
  • §102(a)(2): potentially available, but disqualified. Even if treated as a U.S. application publication "effectively filed" as of 2014‑07‑22, the §102(b)(2)(C) exception applies: the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date, owned by the same person (Exploramed NC7, Inc. → Willow Innovations, Inc.). Common ownership removes it.
  • §102(a)(1) becomes live only on one condition. If the '005's claims cannot claim the 2014‑07‑22 date and instead take their effective filing date from the 2017 CIP branch (PCT/US17/17112, filed 2017‑02‑09), then a 2016‑10‑06 publication is before that date and becomes §102(a)(1) art — and §102(b)(2)(C) would not rescue it, because the exception applies only to §102(a)(2) art.
• Anticipation mapping: I found no claim it potentially anticipates, and there is a structural reason that stays true: the reference is a pump-mechanics/closed-loop-control disclosure, whereas the only independent claim whose language I could corroborate — claim 1 — is the remote-interface claim (wireless transmitter; "language protocol for two-way communication between the breast pump and an external device"; remote user interface with "user control functionality"; "an input for the human to adjust the breast pump with the external device"). This reference does not disclose those elements. The inversion is worth stating plainly: the claims that could be attacked with this reference on §102(a)(1) grounds (because they lose the 2014 priority date) are precisely the remote-interface claims that the reference lacks. At most it is relevant to the Summary "aspects" 2 and 4 (compression-member/conduit/controller system claims) — and only if those claims are denied the 2014 date for some textual-support reason.

2.2 US 2017/0173232 A1 — "Breast pump system and methods" (Exploramed NC7, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0173232 A1, published Jun. 22, 2017; earliest priority listed as Jul. 22, 2014; Exploramed NC7, Inc.
• Description: Same family and same subject matter as §2.1 (breast pump system and methods; same specification lineage).
• §102 exposure:
  • §102(a)(1): not available. Published 2017‑06‑22 — after both candidate effective filing dates (2014‑07‑22 and 2017‑02‑09).
  • §102(a)(2): the only route, because its own effective filing date (2014‑07‑22 per the record) precedes the '005's — but §102(b)(2)(C) common ownership again disqualifies it.
• Anticipation mapping: None. Same reasoning as §2.1 — it does not disclose the wireless-transmitter / language-protocol / remote-UI limitations of claim 1.

2.3 USD905230 S1 (forward citation, not prior art)

Design patent, Willow Innovations, Inc., published 2020‑12‑15 — after the '005 issued and commonly owned. It cannot be §102 art against the '005. I include it only because it is the sole entry in the '005's "Cited By" table.

3. Candidate prior art that is not on the '005's citation record — flagged as my own identification, not an Office citation

Because the record is so thin, I looked for third-party art that reads on the claim 1 remote-interface limitations, which is where the '005's asserted novelty actually sits. The strongest item I can ground with retrieved text is:

• US 2015/0283311 A1 (Alvarez et al.), published Oct. 1, 2015. Its disclosure is startlingly on-point for claim 1: the system "further comprises a computing device configured to communicate with the expression apparatus via a data connection"; "the data connection utilizes wireless communication, near field communication, or a USB cable"; "the computing device can control at least one functionality of the expression apparatus via the data connection… power of the expression apparatus, vacuum pressure applied by the expression apparatus, or cycles per minute"; "a notification reminding a user to express milk may be transmitted to the computing device"; and firmware updates over the data connection. Retrieved verbatim from US20150283311A1 PDF.
  • Same priority trap as §2.1: published 2015‑10‑01, it is §102(a)(1) art only if the '005's remote-interface claims do not carry the 2014‑07‑22 date.
  • Caveat: I did not verify the assignee of this publication, and I did not confirm whether it was cited in any sibling Willow application. Treat it as a research lead, not a citation-of-record.

Other items I saw referenced in adjacent search reports (e.g., US 2009/0151925 A1 (Richards), US 2011/0094742 A1 (Badalamenti), US 2003/0111224 A1 (Halley), US 2009/0008078 A1 (Patel), US 6,371,210 B1 (Bode), and Furrer/Pollen/Weniger/Rigert/Park/Silver/Kasting from the Chiaro/Elvie IPR filings) belong to different applications' records — most of the breast-pump art I retrieved in this session comes from petitions against US 11,806,454, not from the '005's file. I am deliberately not presenting them as citations to the '005.

4. Two flags on the previously generated sections

1. No contradiction on substance, but a correction of emphasis. The prior "Litigation summary" reported that Willow moved for summary judgment that the '005 is not invalid under §103 (Dkt. 127). The citation record above explains why that motion existed and why it was never decided: the '005's own prosecution produced essentially no §103 art record, so the invalidity fight was being litigated for the first time in court. The prior section's statement that the case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice (Sept. 10–12, 2025) with no merits ruling means there is no adjudicated §102 or §103 holding on any '005 claim to rely on.
2. Date discrepancy, restated. The prior section flagged that the task said April 26, 2026 while the search environment reported September 28, 2026. This task again states April 26, 2026. I have found no '005-related activity after the September 2025 dismissal under either date.

5. What I could not verify — and how to close it

• The granted patent's front-page (56) table is unverified. The two references above come from Google Patents' citation table for the pre-grant publication. Google's tables sometimes omit foreign patent documents and non-patent literature, and sometimes merge examiner citations with applicant/IDS citations. To get the authoritative list, pull one of:
  • the granted PDF for US 10,625,005 B2 (front page, "(56) References Cited"), or
  • USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for application 16/666,895, and
  • the file wrapper (IDS transmittals, PTO-892 notices) — an IDS can carry dozens of references that never appear in the printed patent.
• The exact claim set is unverified (same gap flagged in the prior "Patents summary"). The only independent claim whose wording I could ground is claim 1 (col. 28:25–41, per the Willow v. Chiaro complaint). Anticipation conclusions for claims 2+ are therefore provisional.
• Application-number mapping for US 2016/0287769 A1 and US 2017/0173232 A1 is not confirmed by me. Both are labeled "Breast pump system and methods," Exploramed NC7, with a 2014‑07‑22 priority listing.

Bottom line

For US 10,625,005 B2, the reproducible record shows exactly two patent citations — US 2016/0287769 A1 (pub. 2016‑10‑06) and US 2017/0173232 A1 (pub. 2017‑06‑22), both Exploramed NC7 publications in the same family — and one forward citation, USD905230 S1.

Neither cited reference anticipates any claim of the '005 on the record as I can reconstruct it, for two independent reasons: (a) each is a commonly owned family member whose only §102 hook is §102(a)(2), which the §102(b)(2)(C) exception defeats; and (b) neither discloses the remote-interface limitations of claim 1 (wireless transmitter, two-way "language protocol," remote user interface with user control functionality, and human input to adjust the pump via the external device), which is the subject matter that distinguishes the '005 from its siblings. The single most litigable §102 issue — whether the remote-interface claims lose the 2014‑07‑22 priority date and thereby expose themselves to 2015–2016 third-party art such as US 2015/0283311 A1 (Alvarez et al.) — depends on a written-description analysis of the 2017 CIP branch that the record I retrieved does not resolve, and that no court or the PTAB has decided, because Willow v. Chiaro (2:23‑cv‑00229‑JRG) was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation in September 2025 before the §103 motion on the '005 was reached.

I'll gather the prior-art record for this patent and the actual claim language before analyzing §103.

I need the actual claim text and the prior-art record. Let me search more specifically.

Let me get the actual claim text and identify additional prior art on the pump-control and remote-interface features.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,625,005 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on the instruction to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page": the page as supplied contains no substantive Prior Art section. Its only prior-art content is (i) the "Prior art keywords" string (breast, pump, milk, pressure, pumping), (ii) the CPC/IPC classification list, and (iii) a "Patent Citations" table that contains only the applicant's own family members (US 2016/0287769 A1, US 2017/0173232 A1, USD905230S1). In other words, no third-party reference appears on the face of this patent. I therefore built the prior-art record from the co-pending PTAB proceedings against siblings/cousins of this family, the EPO search report cited in the equivalent-family art, and the parties' own litigation exhibits — each flagged for verification status. Where I could not verify something, I say so.

1. Threshold: the claim I am analyzing (previously unresolved — now partially resolved)

The earlier rounds of this analysis flagged that claim 1 text could not be obtained and warned that the only available characterization came from Willow's complaint (claim 1 at col. 28:25–41, "language protocol," "remote user interface," "user control functionality"). I have now retrieved a claim 1 text via Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10625005](/patent/10625005)) that is consistent with the complaint's column/line cite and with the specification's Summary section. Caveat: Justia is a secondary source and I could not re-verify it against the granted PDF or Patent Public Search in this session. Treat the numbering below as my working decomposition, not as a certified claim print.

Claim 1 as retrieved — element decomposition:

This is a single, very long, packaging-plus-connectivity claim. That structure matters: because it mixes (a) a mechanical architecture and (b) a generic wireless/app data layer, the obviousness case splits cleanly into a mechanical ground and a data/connectivity ground, and the strongest attack is a three-reference combination. Note also that element 1.11 ("language protocol") is a data-format/software abstraction, and 1.9–1.14 are largely the routine implementation of a consumer-app-connected device — the classic KSR fact pattern.

2. The gating issue: effective filing date (it changes the prior-art set)

Claim 1's remote-interface limitations (1.9–1.14) are almost certainly new matter relative to the family's original disclosure chain. The '005's cross-reference recites: continuation of 16/050,201 (Jul 31, 2018); continuation of PCT/US17/17112 (Feb 9, 2017, claiming provisionals 62/450,528 = Jan 25, 2017; 62/442,008 = Jan 4, 2017; 62/421,263 = Nov 12, 2016; 62/293,480 = Feb 10, 2016); and a CIP of 15/708,771 → 15/180,420 → PCT/US15/041257 (Jul 21, 2015) → provisional 62/027,685 (Jul 22, 2014). The app/remote-interface figures (FIGS. 22–41) are not part of the 2015 disclosure that became WO2016/014469 A1 (published Jan 28, 2016).

Two consequences, both material to §103:

• If claim 1 is entitled only to Feb 9, 2017 (or Jan 25, 2017) — the far more likely outcome for a claim reciting an app/BLE interface — then (i) the Alvarez publication (Oct 8, 2015) is §102(a)(1) art with no grace-period escape, and (ii) even the applicant's own Jan 28, 2016 publication falls outside the 1-year grace window (Jan 28, 2016 → Feb 9, 2017 is >1 year, §102(b)(1)(A) unavailable).
• If claim 1 is entitled to the Feb 10, 2016 provisional — the window narrows and the §102(b)(1)(A) grace exception becomes available against Willow's own intervening publications.

I cannot resolve priority without the provisionals' content and the file history. It is the single most important issue for this patent, and the earlier-generated summary correctly flagged that Google's "2014-07-22 / 2035-07-15" entries are source assumptions, not legal conclusions.

3. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

A bachelor's degree in mechanical or biomedical engineering (or equivalent) plus 2–5 years of experience in powered medical-device or consumer-device design, including: diaphragm/peristaltic pumping and vacuum control; motor/encoder closed-loop control; and integration of short-range wireless radios and companion-app data models. This is the level reflected in the parties' own declarations in the parallel Elvie–Momcozy dispute (e.g., Mr. Ryan Bauer, IPR2025-00554, Ex. 1003).

4. Prior-art record (with verification status)

Critical observation for §103 strategy: the face of the '005 patent shows no third-party U.S. patent references. Every reference in §4 above was not before the examiner. That materially lowers the deference owed to the examiner's allowance and is why the Furrer/Alvarez/Moxxly combination is worth serious weight.

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Furrer + Alvarez (+ Moxxly for 1.13) — strongest

• 1.1–1.3, 1.6: Furrer's breastshield unit is expressly a "hands-free" device "worn in a bra under the clothes," with a breast pad (flange), a stub defining a nipple-receiving area, and a main body/housing enclosing the vacuum interface and a milk collection container.
• 1.8: Furrer's media-separation membrane is a flexible member displaced to generate negative pressure in the nipple-receiving area; using two motor-driven actuators rather than one (one to occlude/islate the breast-side line, one to displace the member/line downstream) is the routine mechanical expedient in peristaltic/pinch-valve pumping and is further suggested by the need to generate positive pressure to expel milk through a one-way valve (the '005's own stated purpose).
• 1.4, 1.5: Placing battery and circuit board on a chassis between shell and body is the definitional arrangement of a wearable pump; Furrer/Park teach the enclosed-housing architecture, and Furrer itself notes conventional battery-powered control units as a known option.
• 1.9, 1.12–1.14: Alvarez is explicit: a sensing unit that measures milk-expression volume; a communication module that transmits the measurement data to a computing device or server; an application that displays results to the user; and a remote-control method in which the pump is actuated in response to a control signal received over a network.
• 1.10, 1.13: Alvarez's per-session/per-stroke volume data and Moxxly's session/trend/per-breast tracking supply the chip-based usage/session tracking and per-breast display.
• 1.11: Two-way communication is the necessary complement of the above (the device must both send volume and receive settings); both Alvarez's server-control signal and the US 8,216,179 bidirectional shield↔pump link teach two-way communication, and a "language protocol" is nothing more than the message/format layer inherent in any two-way link (see §7).

Motivation (KSR rationale, articulated):

1. Same field / analogous art: all four references are breast pumps or breast-pump data systems; Furrer, Moxxly and Park are specifically wearable, in-bra systems.
2. Addressing the problem the wearable architecture creates: a pump worn inside a bra is physically inaccessible and visually concealed. The user cannot reach its buttons or read its display without undressing. That creates a direct, articulated design incentive to move status display and control to a remote, wirelessly linked user interface — exactly the rationale Alvarez states and Moxxly implements.
3. No change in principle of operation: adding a BLE radio, memory chip and app layer to a known mechanical pump does not alter how the pump pumps; the combination is the aggregation of known elements with predictable results (KSR; MPEP 2144.03).
4. Miniaturization/cost incentive: offloading display and controls to a phone reduces on-board display hardware and battery drain — a recognized motivation in a device whose disclosed power budget is a stated design constraint (the '005 spec itself lists a four-level power hierarchy and a "hibernate/standby/standby-with-LEDs/active" scheme).
5. BLE specifically: Bluetooth Low Energy was a published, standardized protocol (Bluetooth 4.0, 2010) with commodity modules and low-power operation — a predictable design choice for a battery-powered wearable. Willow's own specification recites "BTLE" alongside BLUETOOTH/Wi-Fi/RFID/NFC as interchangeable options.

Ground 2 — Furrer + Alvarez + Moxxly, with the per-breast limitation mapped to Moxxly

Moxxly expressly discloses the app displaying "volume pumped by the right and left breasts", day/week trends, reminders and notifications, and app-side autonomy over the pump. If element 1.13's "displays the pumped milk volume of each breast" is the point of novelty, Moxxly is the closest art and (depending on its provisional/parent content and the '005's priority date) may independently qualify under §102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of Jan 30, 2016 / Jan 30, 2015 — earlier than the Feb 10, 2016 provisional in the '005's own chain.

Flag: because Moxxly's effective filing date precedes even the earliest provisional in the '005's chain (Jan 30, 2016 vs. Feb 10, 2016), Moxxly is a §102(a)(2) reference no matter which priority date the '005 wins — unless Willow can invoke §102(b)(2)(A) by showing the subject matter was publicly disclosed by Willow before Jan 30, 2016 (e.g., via WO2016/014469). That is the pivotal factual question in any real challenge and it is the reason I flag priority so prominently in §2.

Ground 3 — A connectivity-first ground: US 8,216,179 + Alvarez + Moxxly + Furrer/Park

If the mechanical elements are treated as admitted/known wearable-pump architecture, the entire claim reduces to the data layer, and the §8,216,179 document (operating keys + display of pump programs + bidirectional wireless transmission to the pump + external data-processing device for evaluation) plus Alvarez (volume sensing, network transmission, remote actuation) plus Moxxly (app, per-breast volume, sessions, reminders) renders 1.9–1.14 obvious. (Number unverified — verify before using.)

6. Element-by-element disposition of claim 1

7. On the two hardest elements

"Language protocol for two-way communication" (1.11). Under the broadest reasonable reading, this is satisfied by any defined message format supporting bidirectional traffic — i.e., it is inherent in any operative two-way wireless link (BLE GATT services/characteristics; Alvarez's server-mediated control channel; the shield↔pump bidirectional signalling of the US 8,216,179 document). Willow may argue the term requires a bespoke, pump-specific protocol with distinct live vs. historical message streams (the '005 spec distinguishes "live data" from "historical data" and states "both the pump and external device can create and understand and are responsive to specific messages"). If the court adopts that narrower reading, obviousness is harder but not defeated: dividing data into live-stream and stored-history channels and defining corresponding messages is the routine architecture of any connected device app, and Alvarez's server-side analysis vs. real-time sensor feed supplies the same functional split. This term is the claim's most construction-sensitive vulnerability — and the district court's Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 157, Jan. 10, 2025) is the document that would resolve it, but the case settled before trial and I could not retrieve the substance of that order.

"Two drivers that displace a flexible member" (1.8). This is where I have the least verified art mapping. Furrer uses vacuum-driven membrane displacement, not two motor-driven drivers acting on a flexible member. The obviousness theory here rests on (i) general peristaltic/pinch-valve pumping art, (ii) the functional need to isolate the breast-side vacuum while developing positive expulsion pressure downstream (the '005's own stated purpose, ~25 mmHg), and (iii) design choice. A rigorous rejection on 1.8 would need a dedicated secondary reference disclosing dual motor-driven actuators acting on a compressible tube — I could not verify such a reference in this session and I am not going to name one I cannot support. If 1.8 is the point of novelty that carried allowance, the invalidity case is materially weaker than for the remote-interface elements.

8. Secondary considerations and litigation posture

• No merits ruling exists. The E.D. Tex. case settled and was dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 12, 2025 (Dkt. 175–177); Willow's §103 summary-judgment motion on the '005 (Dkt. 127/153) was never decided, and no IPR has been filed against the '005. So the obviousness question above is untested — there is no estoppel, no FWD, and no claim-construction ruling on "language protocol" in the public record.
• Nexus problem for any secondary-considerations defense: the features that plausibly drove Willow's commercial success (reduced nipple motion <2 mm, quiet operation, latch/extraction waveform control) are recited in sibling claims (the '176, '816, '228, '229, '624, '619, '454 patents), not in '005 claim 1, whose distinctive content is the app/BLE layer. Commercial success of the Willow pump therefore has weak nexus to the '005 claim as issued.
• PTAB signal, supportive of Ground 1: in IPR2025-00554 (Shenzhen Root v. Willow Blossom Holdco/Willow Innovations), the Board instituted trial on Oct. 14, 2025 over Furrer-based §103 grounds — including Furrer + Alvarez and Furrer + Alvarez + Pollen — for Elvie's '454 patent. That is persuasive evidence that a POSITA would combine Furrer with Alvarez in this exact field for predictable reasons, and that the Board found the Petitioner's motivation/expectation-of-success showing adequate at the institution threshold.

9. Conclusion

Claim 1 of US 10,625,005 B2 is, on the record I could assemble, likely unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Furrer (US 10,149,929) in view of Alvarez (US 2015/0283311), further in view of Moxxly/Guthrie (US 10,483,002) — with the US 8,216,179-type bidirectional shield↔pump document as a cumulative reference on the two-way/language-protocol element. The motivation is concrete and articulated (a bra-worn pump is inaccessible, so control and data must move to a wireless remote interface; BLE is a standardized low-power choice; the combination changes no principle of operation), and the expectation of success is high. The combination is materially stronger than a typical §103 case because none of these references appears on the face of the patent.

The two things that could change this answer:

1. Priority. If the '005's claim 1 is entitled to Feb 10, 2016 or earlier, Alvarez remains §102(a)(1) art (published Oct 8, 2015) but the Moxxly overlay and the applicant's own WO2016/014469 become contested; if claim 1 gets only Feb 9, 2017, the prior-art window is wide open.
2. Construction of "language protocol." A narrow, bespoke-protocol construction is the patent's best defense; the broad reading makes 1.11 essentially inherent in Alvarez/’179.

Lower-confidence element: 1.8 ("two drivers that displace a flexible member") — I could not verify a reference squarely disclosing the dual-driver/flexible-tube combination, and I decline to invent one. If that element survived construction intact, it would be the centerpiece of a non-obviousness argument.

Unresolved flags carried forward: (a) claim 1 text is from Justia, not the granted PDF — verify; (b) the US 8,216,179 number↔title↔assignee mapping is unverified; (c) a 2026 Federal Register ITC notice (Docket No. 3932, published Aug. 25, 2026) surfaced in my searches but I could not verify its parties or products, so it does not alter the "no '005-specific ITC action" conclusion; (d) the task's stated date (Apr. 26, 2026) differs from my search environment's (Sept. 28, 2026) — no case events after Sept. 12, 2025 were found either way.