US D977625

I'll search for current litigation/docket information on this design patent before summarizing.

Summary — U.S. Design Patent No. D977625 ("the 'D625 patent")

Bottom line up front: D977625 is a design patent, not a utility patent. It has exactly one claim, no abstract, and no written description of structure. I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 docket involving it; the only litigation I could confirm is a 2023 E.D. Tex. district-court case that is still the operative record in the sources I could retrieve. Details and uncertainties below.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text)

Assignee-chain caveat: Google's page carries its standard disclaimer that the assignee list "may be inaccurate" and that the priority date is an assumption. The Darts-ip flag notes the family has litigation.

Recorded security interests (assignment records, not ownership changes in substance):

• 2020-09-17 — Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, as administrative agent, security agreement (assignor: Exploramed NC7, Inc.)
• 2020-12-08 — Willow Innovations, Inc. (change of name from Exploramed NC7, Inc.)
• 2022-09-09 — Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP, security interest; concurrent release by Perceptive
• 2024-01-11 — Madryn Fund Administration, LLC (assignment of security interest)

Abstract

There is no abstract. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. §171 are not required to include one, and the authoritative full text contains no abstract field. Any "abstract" you see for D977625 elsewhere is auto-generated, not part of the patent.

Claim — plain language

The patent contains one claim (Claim 1), which is therefore the only independent claim:

"The ornamental design for a breast pump, as shown and described."

Plain-language overview:

• What is protected: the visual, ornamental appearance of a breast pump as depicted in the seven drawing figures. It is not a claim to how the pump works, its internal components, or any utilitarian feature.
• Figures provided: FIG. 1 (front perspective), FIG. 2 (top), FIG. 3 (bottom), FIG. 4 (right side), FIG. 5 (left side), FIG. 6 (front), FIG. 7 (rear). There are no additional/partial views beyond these seven.
• Scope carving: "The dash-dash broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the breast pump that form no part of the claimed design." So the design right extends only to what is drawn in solid lines; anything in dash-dash broken lines is expressly disclaimed.
• How it is enforced: infringement is judged by the ordinary-observer test (the design must appear substantially the same to an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art), not by element-by-element claim reading.
• Relationship to family members: because D977625 is a continuation of the D832995 application (both claiming 2016-02-10 priority), it is a further variant of the same breast-pump ornamentation. The different continuation was presumably filed to obtain a different solid-line/broken-line scope than D832995 and D809646. Caution: I could not inspect the actual drawing images, so I cannot state with confidence precisely which surfaces are solid vs. broken in each figure.

Litigation search results

Only one case involving D977625 was found:

• Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. d/b/a Elvie, No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), filed 2023-05-24, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• D977625 ("the 'D625 Patent") is asserted in Count VII of Willow's complaint, alongside U.S. Patents 10,398,816, 10,434,228, 10,625,005, 10,722,624, 11,185,619, and design patent D832,995. Chiaro counterclaimed on U.S. Patent 11,260,151. Willow also asserted 10,688,229.
• The complaint alleges the Elvie Pump is "identical to, or substantially the same as" the D977625 design, with a FIG. 1-vs-product comparison chart, and pleads direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement (§271(a),(b),(c)).
• A claim construction order (docket entry 157) followed a 2024-09-24 hearing and resolved 11 disputed term groups; the design patents D832995 and D977625 were carried in the case. Infringement-contention exhibits include "an annotated Figure 2 from the 'D625 Patent."
• Stanford's NPE Litigation Database likewise lists exactly one case for D977625 — this same matter — and categorizes the asserter as a product company (i.e., not an NPE).

CAFC / 2026 dockets: My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal, 2026 docket entry, or appellate decision tied to D977625. I cannot state affirmatively that no appeal exists — only that I found none. If you need a definitive answer, the authoritative checks would be the CAFC docket search (by case name or by patent number in the briefs) and PACER for 2:23-cv-00229 post-judgment activity, neither of which is fully indexed by the general web sources available to me.

Adjacent but distinct: a W.D. Wash. matter (gov.uscourts.wawd.321565) involving breast-pump claim charts against Momcozy products appeared in results, but the patents charted there are Chiaro-assigned patents (e.g., 11,357,893; 11,413,380) — not D977625. Do not conflate the two.

Explicit uncertainties

1. No abstract exists — deliberately and by rule, not by omission.
2. Examiner identity is drawn from a secondary examiner index, not the printed patent.
3. Priority date 2016-02-10 is flagged as an assumption by the source, though the continuation chain (29/554,291 → 29/632,106 → 29/664,908) is consistent with it.
4. Claim scope in visual terms cannot be fully characterized without viewing the drawing sheets; I can confirm the figure list, the single-claim text, and the broken-line disclaimer, not the specific surface contours claimed in solid lines.
5. No CAFC 2026 activity confirmed; that absence is a search limitation, not a verified negative.

I'll search litigation sources for this specific design patent number.

Let me dig into the specific cases and check whether the ITC action asserts this design patent.

Now let me check for any additional suits (e.g., the "Shenzhen Root" case) and confirm the docket outcome.

Bottom line

I found exactly one litigated case in which U.S. Design Patent No. D977625 ("Breast pump," Willow Innovations, Inc.; issued Feb. 7, 2023) was asserted as an affirmative claim of infringement. It settled before trial, so there is no merits adjudication of the D977625 design.

Case 1 — Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie)

How D977625 fits in. Willow's complaint asserted seven patents: U.S. 10,398,816; 10,434,228; 10,625,005; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; U.S. Design Patent No. D832,995 ("the 'D995 Patent"); and U.S. Design Patent No. D977,625 ("the 'D625 Patent") (Compl. ¶ 16). D977625 was pleaded as Count VII (¶¶ 140–153), accusing the Elvie Pump and its companion mobile application of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), plus induced, contributory, and willful infringement. Willow alleged the Elvie Pump is "identical to, or substantially the same as, the patented design of the 'D625 Patent" under the ordinary-observer test (¶ 144). Note the complaint's own drafting slip: ¶ 144 refers to being deceived as to "the patented design of the 'D995 patent" while ostensibly discussing the 'D625 design.

Procedural milestones specific to D977625:

• Claim construction: The court held a Markman hearing on Sept. 24, 2024. The Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 157) expressly identifies "U.S. Patent D832,995 and D977,625" as the two asserted design patents and resolves disputes on 11 groups of terms (the disputed terms, however, come from the utility patents). Elvie also counterclaimed on U.S. 11,260,151.
• Priority-date challenge: Willow moved for summary judgment that D832,995 and D977,625 are entitled to the priority date of parent application No. 29/554,291 (Dkt. 130), with a sealed reply filed Jan. 6, 2025 (Dkt. 150). This is significant because D977625 issued Feb. 7, 2023 from application 29/664,908 (filed Sept. 28, 2018), a continuation of 29/632,106 (which issued as D832,995), all claiming priority to Feb. 10, 2016. The motion was never decided — the case settled.
• Other rulings: The court dismissed Elvie's trade-dress counterclaim (Count 21) without prejudice on Sept. 4, 2024 (Dkt. 90).
• No CAFC appeal involving D977625 appears in the sources I could reach. (Verify on PACER/CM-ECF docket 2:23-cv-00229 for the final dismissal papers, which were ordered but whose text I could not retrieve.)

Sources: E.D. Tex. Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157 (via docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/); complaint text (via ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/4449536/2-23-cv-00229_txed_complaint_exparte.pdf); docket summary at docketalarm.com (terminated Sept. 12, 2025; flags CLOSED, STAYED); Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for D977625 (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/d977625), which lists this case as the sole case involving D977625.

Related proceedings that do NOT involve D977625 (flagged to avoid false positives)

• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1522, Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof — complaint filed Aug. 20, 2026 by Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd.; instituted Sept. 21, 2026 (91 FR 60645, Sept. 24, 2026). The asserted patents are U.S. 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; and D1,031,993. D977625 is not asserted. Do not conflate D1,053,344 or D1,031,993 with D977625.
• Elvie (Chiaro) v. Shenzhen Root Technology / Momcozy litigation, No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (W.D. Wash.) — asserted patents are U.S. 11,357,893; 11,413,380; 11,813,381; and 11,806,454. D977625 is not asserted. (Related IPRs, e.g., IPR2025-00554, likewise do not involve D977625; design patents are not IPR-eligible.)
• The Google Patents "family has litigation" flag for family ID 57482697 points to the Darts-IP family-level litigation dataset; the D977625-specific hit is the E.D. Tex. case above.

Caveats on completeness

• I could not directly query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation portal in this session; the results above are grounded in the E.D. Tex. docket mirrors, the Stanford NPE database, the Federal Register ITC notice, and reproductions of the pleadings. A PACER docket pull on 2:23-cv-00229 and a Unified Patents portal search for "D977625" would be the proper confirmatory steps before relying on this list for a filing or opinion.
• D977625 is one member of a three-application design family (D809,646; D832,995; D977625). Litigation asserting those siblings is not litigation asserting D977625, and I have deliberately excluded it.
• I found no other district court case, ITC investigation, or CAFC appeal naming D977625. If any exist, they are not reflected in the public sources reachable here.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against public sources before drafting.

Let me check for any proceedings tied to the Willow family or the Chiaro litigation, plus the design-patent IPR precedent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US D977625 S1 ("Breast pump")

Verified as of 2026-09-28 against the structured ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block plus independent web checks (PTAB E2E / PTAB petition documents, Darts-IP family litigation flag, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, E.D. Tex. docket).

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBM reviews, zero derivation proceedings; there is therefore no active/invalidated/sustained/settled/denied breakdown to report, and the bottom-line defensive posture is neither "hardened by surviving IPRs" nor "claims canceled": D977625's sole claim has never been tested at the PTAB, is not estopped in any respect, and remains fully available to challenge — but a challenger gets no free ride from prior proceedings, because none exist. Note also the framing error to avoid: D977625 is a design patent with exactly one claim — "The ornamental design for a breast pump, as shown and described." There are no claims 1–5 to cancel; any demand letter citing "claims 2–5" is citing nothing.

Proceedings on file

None. The canonical structured list returned no AIA trials, and my searches surfaced no IPR/PGR/CBM petition naming D977625 or its parent designs (D809646, D832995). I found no proceeding numbers to report, and I will not synthesize any. If a petition exists that ODP has not ingested, it is not publicly discoverable in PTAB E2E petition records as of today.

Why the zero is structural, not accidental

• Design patents are IPR-eligible, just rarely targeted. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, IPR2020-00534 (PTAB filed 2020-02-07; institution 2020-08-11; FWD Paper 28, 2021-08-04), is the proof of concept: an IPR against U.S. D797,625. IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) is limited to § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications, which is a poor fit for ornamental designs (no claim text to construe, no claim chart to attack).
• CBM is unavailable. 35 U.S.C. § 18(d)(1) requires a claim to a method or apparatus for performing data processing; an ornamental design claim is neither. PGR was technically possible (the 2016-02-10 priority predates no AIA cutoff issue) but the statutory window closed nine months after issuance: 2023-11-07 (issued 2023-02-07).
• The real prior-art attack in this space has been ex parte reexamination, aimed at utility patents. E.g., Chiaro's U.S. 11,357,893 was hit by anonymous reexam requests 90/019,410 (filed 2024-02-08) and 90/019,679 (filed 2024-09-24), merged and still being prosecuted. Nobody in this ecosystem has used the PTAB against the Willow design family.

Where D977625 has actually been litigated (not PTAB — but this is the live exposure)

• Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie), No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, E.D. Tex. (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) — filed 2023-05-24. Willow asserted six utility patents and two design patents: D832,995 and D977,625, accusing the Elvie Pump of being "the same as or substantially identical to the patented design." Elvie counterclaimed on its own U.S. 11,260,151.
• Procedural milestones I could verify: Markman hearing 2024-09-24 (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne); Claim Construction Order at Dkt. 157; Dkt. 90 (2024-09-04) dismissing Elvie's Texas trade-dress counterclaim with leave to amend. Third-party docket aggregators list the case as closed; I could not verify the disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment), so treat "resolved" as unconfirmed.
• No IPR was ever filed by Elvie against D977625, D832995, or D809646 — despite Elvie actively using IPRs and reexams elsewhere (it is the patent owner in IPR2024-00953, IPR2024-01296, IPR2025-00554). Elvie chose the district court route on the design patents.

Strategic summary

Claim status. D977625's single design claim is UNTESTED — not canceled, not sustained, not adjudicated invalid anywhere I can verify. That cuts both ways: the patent is not narrowed, so its scope is whatever the drawings show under the ordinary-observer test, and it runs to its 2038-02-07 anticipated expiration. There is no prior PTAB record to point a judge or an examiner toward. The practical consequence is that the whole design claim is the unit of attack — you cannot carve off dependent claims to narrow a dispute, and partial wins are unavailable.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because no petitioner has ever appeared. Every ground is on the table for a first petitioner: § 102 anticipation and § 103 obviousness on patents and printed publications in an IPR; § 112 (written description / indefiniteness / non-enablement) and public-use/on-sale art only in district court or the ITC; and § 102/§ 103 patents-and-printed-publications art in an anonymous ex parte reexam under § 302 (§ 301 limits reexam to those categories). A new defendant also faces no § 315(b) bar unless it (or a privy/RPI) was served with a complaint alleging infringement of D977625 more than one year ago — given the 2023-05-24 filing and 2023-09-12 amended complaint, any former Elvie affiliate/privy served in that window is time-barred today, while the rest of the market is not.

Pattern signals. This is product-company-versus-product-company litigation (Willow/Exploramed NC7 genesis, with recorded security interests to Perceptive Credit Holdings III (2020-09-17) and Madryn Health Partners II (2022-09-09), reassigned to Madryn Fund Administration, LLC (2024-01-11)) — not an NPE campaign, and no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents appears anywhere in the chain. The most important environmental change is legal, not procedural: on 2024-05-21 the Federal Circuit sitting en banc in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, overruled the Rosen–Durling test and held design-patent obviousness is governed by the flexible Graham/KSR framework with an "analogous art" requirement in place of the rigid "basically the same" primary reference. That materially improves a post-2024 design-patent IPR petitioner's odds relative to the pre-LKQ world that produced the 2021 no-invalidity FWD in IPR2020-00534. It is the single biggest lever available against D977625 today.

Recommended next steps

• Treat "no PTAB activity" as the finding, not a placeholder. Confirm independently on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) and in the family's Darts-IP litigation record before relying on it; the ODP ingest lag is real, though I found no contradicting evidence.
• File early if you were recently served. Because no petition exists, there is no wait-and-see benefit; a first-filed IPR also gives you the § 315(e)(2) estoppel shield against the patent owner's later follow-on theories. Calendar one year from service.
• Build the petition around LKQ's framework. With Rosen–Durling gone, assemble analogous-art ornamental references (wearable in-bra pump designs, flange/housing shapes) as patents and printed publications — the family's own cited art shows Amazon product pages and catalogs have been accepted as printed publications (see the prior-art citations in D1012270 and D1033630, both citing D977625).
• Run a parallel anonymous ex parte reexam on the same art as a lower-cost, non-estoppel-generating anchor given the merged-reexam model already in play on Chiaro's '893 patent (90/019,410 / 90/019,679).
• Do not assume one design patent is the fight. D809646 (issued 2018-02-06), D832995 (issued 2018-11-06), and D977625 (issued 2023-02-07) are the same 2016-02-10 priority family with serial continuations — invalidating or designing around one leaves the others intact, and the family was extended again with D998137 (2023-09-05) and, most recently, D1114241 (2026-02-17, now assigned to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited). Map the full family before settling.
• Verify the current owner and its privies. The recorded chain (Exploramed NC7 → Willow Innovations, Inc. change of name; multiple security interests; the "Willow Blossom Holdco" entity appearing on Chiaro assets and the newest family members) matters for standing, for real-party-in-interest disclosure in any IPR, and for who can bind whom.

Caveat on sourcing: every statement about the 2:23-cv-00229 docket is drawn from public docket aggregators and secondary reporting, not from a PACER pull, and I could not confirm the case's final disposition. Nothing above should be read as a conclusion that D977625 is valid or invalid — only that no AIA tribunal has said so, in either direction.

I'll start by trying to pull the actual assignment records (reel/frame + correspondent) and any litigation/ownership context for this design patent family.

Good — I now have litigation and corporate context. Let me chase the actual assignment records (reel/frame, correspondent) and the corporate/ownership history.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US D977625 S1 ("Breast pump")

Source note / limitation up front: I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center records (reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record) for this patent in this session — assignmentcenter.uspto.gov is a JavaScript application that did not return record-level data to me, and Google Patents' mirrored reassignment entries do not expose reel/frame or correspondent fields. Every reel/frame and correspondent value below is therefore marked "not retrieved" rather than estimated. The dates, conveyance types, assignors and assignees below are taken verbatim from the reassignment records mirrored on the Google Patents page for USD977625S1 (retrieved 2026-09-28), which reproduce the USPTO assignment abstracts. Verify reel/frame and correspondent at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by searching application 29/664,908 or patent D977625.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No inventor-departure / fire-sale signal is detectable here. None of the three inventors appears as an assignor in any recorded assignment on this patent's chain. The earliest recorded conveyance is a lender security agreement (2020-09-17), roughly 4.5 years after the Feb-2016 design priority date — not an inventor exit.
• No inventor-to-company assignment is surfaced on this patent either. This is not unusual for a continuation design patent: the design application chain is US29/554,291 → USD809646S1 (filed 2016-02-10) → US29/632,106 → USD832995S1 (filed 2018-01-05) → US29/664,908 → USD977625S1 (filed 2018-09-28). Any inventor assignment was likely recorded against the root filing and not re-recorded for each continuation. Flagging as unclear, not as a finding.

Original assignee

Entity on the issued patent: Willow Innovations Inc (per the "Current Assignee / Original Assignee" field of USD977625S1). At filing (2018-09-28) the named corporate entity was ExploraMed NC7, Inc., which was renamed Willow Innovations, Inc. — a change of name recorded 2020-12-08, i.e., the same legal person, not a sale. Both names appear in the record (ExploraMed NC7, Inc., 1975 W. El Camino Real, Suite 306, Mountain View, CA 94040; Willow Innovations, Inc., 1975 W. El Camino Real, Suite 101, Mountain View, CA 94040).

Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — clearly.

• FDA 510(k) K191577 cleared August 2019 for the "Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0", sponsor ExploraMed NC7, Inc. (contact: Steve Holmes, Chief Product Officer, sholmes@willowpump.com). Predicate device is the "Exploramed NC7 Athena Breast Pump" (K161266) — i.e., the company's own earlier iteration. (Source: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K191577.pdf)
• The asserted patents in Willow's own complaint are identified as being practiced by Willow's products, and Willow gives "substantial and continuous notice" of the asserted patents on its website (Willow's complaint, 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, Count III).

Primary line of business: femtech / consumer medical devices — wearable, in-bra electric breast pumps and milk storage containers (Class II powered breast pump, 21 CFR 884.5160, product code HGX).

Current status: Operating, privately held, and actively enforcing. It is a plaintiff asserting this patent, and it is currently a co-complainant in an active ITC Section 337 investigation. Two related corporate developments worth tracking:

• Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd., 107 Cheapside, 9th Floor, London EC2V 6DN, UK, appears as an assignee on later Willow-family patents (e.g., USD1114241S1, cited-by entry, published 2026-02-17; US12478713B2 / US12496381B2 / US12508350B2) and is a co-complainant with Willow Innovations in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1522, instituted 2026-09-21 (91 FR 60645). This is a group-affiliate/topco structure, not a licensing-only shell on the evidence available.
• D977625 itself is not among the patents asserted in the 2026 ITC action (that complaint asserts the '380, '292, D'344, '388 and D'993 patents) — it remains with Willow Innovations, Inc.

Assignment timeline

Five reassignment records are mirrored for this patent. Reel/frame and correspondent are not retrievable from the sources accessible to me; I have not invented them. If you need those fields populated, run the patent number through the Assignment Center and drop the reel/frame values into the placeholders below.

• 2020-09-17 (recorded 2020-09-17) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — cannot assess recurrence; flagging as an open field (this is exactly the field that would expose a repeat recording agent across the chain)
  • Context: Securitization — grant of a security interest in patent collateral to a healthcare-focused credit fund; title does not move.

• 2020-12-08 (recorded 2020-12-08) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (see document for details)
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg / change of name only — same legal entity, new trade name. Critically, this is not a transfer to a new owner, and any NPE read that treats "ExploraMed NC7 → Willow Innovations" as a sale would be wrong.

• 2022-09-09 (recorded 2022-09-09) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Assignee: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / refinancing — new lender takes a security interest in the same collateral.

• 2022-09-09 (recorded 2022-09-09) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc. (formerly ExploraMed NC7, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / refinancing — the outgoing lender releases its security interest on the same day the replacement lender records. Same-day release-and-replace is the signature of a loan refinancing, not a title transfer.

• 2024-01-11 (recorded 2024-01-11) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Assignee: Madryn Fund Administration, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — administrative housekeeping within the lender group (servicing/administration of the same collateral position). The borrower/owner does not change.

Bottom line of the timeline: there is no conveyance of title away from the operating company anywhere in this chain. All five records are either a name change or collateral events involving lenders. Notably, the Google Patents legal-events tab for this patent shows only fee-payment entries (2018-09-28 UNDISCOUNTED, 2018-10-01 SMALL entity); the reassignment records live in the separate reassignment section.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US D977625
    2016 : Design priority date Feb 10
    2018 : Application filed by ExploraMed NC7
    2020 : Name change to Willow Innovations
         : Security agreement to Perceptive Credit
    2022 : Security interest to Madryn Health
         : Release recorded by Perceptive Credit
    2023 : Patent issued Feb 7
         : Asserted against Elvie in EDTX
    2024 : Madryn security interest to Madryn Fund Admin
    2025 : Willow group buys Elvie assets out of UK administration
    2026 : Willow and Willow Blossom file ITC 337 complaint

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
No assignment moves D977625 from the operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC. Every assignee-side entry is either the same legal entity under a new name (2020-12-08 change of name) or a lender/administrative agent taking collateral (2020-09-17 Perceptive Credit Holdings III LP; 2022-09-09 Madryn Health Partners II; 2024-01-11 Madryn Fund Administration, LLC). Willow Innovations had a marketed, FDA-cleared product (510(k) K191577, 2019) at the time of every one of these recordings. Caveat on one name: Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd (107 Cheapside, London EC2V 6DN — a corporate-services/serviced-office address) holds later Willow-family design patents and is a co-complainant in ITC 337-TA-1522. On the evidence I have, it holds IP and litigates alongside the operating company, so it fails the "no products, single-purpose LLC" test — but I flag it as unclear for D977625-family watching because I could not pull its UK Companies House filings in this session.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
None of the recorded assignees (Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP; Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP; Madryn Fund Administration, LLC) matches Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities. Perceptive and Madryn are healthcare/credit asset managers that appear in the chain as secured lenders, a conveyance type that does not convey title. Willow Innovations / ExploraMed NC7 likewise do not appear on the RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff lists surfacing in my searches; Willow appears as a complainant against a competitor, not as a serial NPE plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessed.
This is the single field that would decide this signal, and I could not retrieve it. No correspondent has been recorded in this report because no correspondent was retrieved — I will not infer one. Two adjacent data points exist but must not be conflated with assignment correspondents: (a) Willow's trademark correspondence in the 2017 TTAB cancellation (Exploramed NC7, Inc. v. Willow Apparel Pty Limited, Canc. No. 92-065572) was Jill M. Pietrini, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, CA 90067; (b) Willow's litigation counsel in the Elvie case includes Timothy Durst, Laura M. Burson, Cason G. Cole, Carolyn Wall and Jason Fountain. Neither set is an assignment-recording correspondent. Action item: pull the correspondent field for all five records above; a single recurring firm across five lender/name-change recordings would be ordinary, whereas recurrence across an LLC-to-LLC title chain would matter.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
Five records across ~3.3 years, but they are not a chain of title transfers: four are lender-side or name-only, and the two 2022-09-09 records are a same-day release/replacement pair — the fingerprint of a refinancing. No LLC-to-LLC hop within 24 months; no shared-principal chaining.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
Suit was filed 2023-05-24 (Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, E.D. Tex.). The nearest prior assignment record is 2022-09-09, ~8.5 months earlier, and it is a security interest plus a release — not a title transfer. Nothing was conveyed to a plaintiff entity within 6 months of filing; Willow was already the owner of record and the product manufacturer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present for this patent's owner.
No Chapter 7/11 for ExploraMed NC7 or Willow Innovations appears in the record, and no sale of the D977625 chain in insolvency proceedings. However, one genuinely unusual related event should be recorded: the defendant in Willow's 2023 suit, Chiaro Technology Limited (Elvie), entered UK administration (the UK analogue of bankruptcy) on 2025-03-28, and immediately afterward the administrators sold substantially all of Chiaro's business and assets — including the '380 patent — to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, a Willow affiliate (per Willow Blossom Holdco's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2024-01296, filed 2025-04-22, and the Director's discretionary decision in IPR2025-00554/00560). This is a competitor acquiring its adversary's portfolio out of insolvency; it does not run through D977625's chain but it bears directly on who can assert or threaten to assert this family going forward.

7. Privateering — not present.
The inverse is documented: Willow asserts its own patents against a direct competitor (Elvie) while shipping the competing product line (Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0). No transfer to a third-party NPE to assert on Willow's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.
The chain terminates at Willow Innovations, Inc. / its lender's collateral agent. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN participation appears.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Willow Innovations, Inc. — the renamed ExploraMed NC7, Inc. (change of name recorded 2020-12-08) — designs, has FDA-cleared (510(k) K191577) and sells the Willow Wearable Breast Pump, and asserted D977625 together with its parent design D832,995 against the competing Elvie Pump in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.), complaint filed 2023-05-24, where the court's claim construction order confirms D977,625 is one of the two asserted design patents. Every recorded assignment on the chain is a collateral or housekeeping event — the 2020-09-17 security agreement to Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, the 2020-12-08 change of name, the paired 2022-09-09 Madryn security interest and Perceptive release, and the 2024-01-11 transfer of that security interest to Madryn Fund Administration, LLC — none of which conveyed title away from the operating company, and none of which occurred within six months of suit. The one residual unknown is the correspondent-of-record on those five recordings, which I could not retrieve; if you populate it and find a single attorney/firm spanning a true title chain, revisit signal 3, but on the present record there is no NPE pattern for this patent.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search D977625 or application 29/664,908); mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Additional family context worth noting: USD977625S1 is a continuation design patent (parent US29/632,106 → USD832995S1; grandparent US29/554,291 → USD809646S1), and both D832,995 and D977,625 were asserted against the same accused Elvie Pump — a common assertion-driven practice of serially filing continuation designs to layer coverage over one commercial embodiment. That is not an NPE signal, but it is why the same patent family shows up in litigation more than once.

I'll verify the patent record and citation data against live sources before building the prior-art analysis.

Let me pull the Justia record and the USPTO-side data for D977625 specifically.

Let me verify the examiner/citation record directly and check for any invalidity contentions identifying prior art against D977625.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Design Patent No. D977625 ("Breast pump")

0. Record verification and provenance notes

I re-checked the D977625 record against live sources. The bibliographic core is confirmed: D977625 S1, application 29/664,908, filed 2018-09-28, issued 2023-02-07, title "Breast pump," inventors Mason / Chang / Makower, assignee Willow Innovations, Inc. (originally Exploramed NC7, Inc.), single claim, seven figures, dash-dash broken lines disclaimed. Confirmation appears in third-party citation tables of later Willow and competitor patents (e.g., Justia records for D1114241, D998137, D1012270, D1031010, D1033630 all list "D977625 | February 7, 2023 | Mason"), and in the E.D. Tex. claim construction order in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG, which confirms "two design patents—U.S. Patent D832,995 and D977,625." No conflicting bibliographic data surfaced. No new/similar patent number was substituted.

Four provenance flags before the substance:

1. Citation-count contradiction inside the primary source itself. The Google Patents page presents a table headed "Citations (40)" and a second table headed "Patent Citations (44)." These are not identical. The reconciliation is that the 44-item list = the 40-item list plus four entries: USD565174S1 (Medela, breastpump housing), US11185619B2 (Willow, breast pump system with pressure sensor), USD832995S1 (the direct parent design), and US11376352B2 (Chiaro, breast pump system). I treat the 44-item list as the complete record and analyze all 44, noting where each appears.
2. "Priority date" ≠ "filing date" in the citation tables. Google's cited-reference tables give a priority date and a publication date. They do not give the cited reference's actual filing date. Where I need the "effectively filed" date for §102(a)(2) purposes I use the listed priority date and say so; exact filing dates would require per-reference verification in PatentCenter/Espacenet.
3. Examiner-citation markers. In the source, essentially every entry in the citations table carries the "*" marker meaning "cited by examiner." That means the references were before the examiner during prosecution of 29/664,908 — it does not mean the examiner relied on any of them for a rejection. D977625 issued without the design being rejected over these references.
4. Search-date inconsistency. This task states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the environment/fetch timestamp on the authoritative record is 2026-09-28. I flag this only because it affects how you read any "cited-by" (forward-citation) counts; it does not change the §102 analysis, which depends only on pre-2018 dates.

1. Threshold: what "which claim(s) does it anticipate" means for D977625

For D977625 the answer to "which claim(s)" is always Claim 1 and only Claim 1. The patent has exactly one claim:

"The ornamental design for a breast pump, as shown and described."

There is no abstract, no dependent claim, and no alternative claim set. So the question is not which claim but whether any single reference can anticipate that one claim — and under design-patent law the test is doctrinally different from utility patents:

• Single-reference, ordinary-observer test. Anticipation of a design claim requires that a single prior-art reference, considered as a whole, create substantially the same overall visual impression on an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (ordinary-observer test applies to anticipation; rejecting point-of-novelty for anticipation). Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).
• Consider the design as a whole. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447 (CCPA 1956). Minor differences in detail defeat anticipation.
• Functional features are discounted. In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Many breast-pump shapes are dictated by function (breast-conforming flange, bra-retained housing), so those aspects carry little anticipatory weight.
• "Same general character" / analogous art. A reference to an unrelated article of manufacture generally cannot anticipate a design for a breast pump. In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982).
• Broken-line carve-out. The dashed portions are expressly not claimed, so a reference that matches D977625 only in its dashed geometry does not anticipate.

Consequence for this memo: §102 relevance for every reference below resolves to the same nominal target — claim 1 — and my per-reference assessment is therefore stated as a relevance tier (available as art vs. not, and plausible anticipatory candidate vs. not), not as a claim-by-claim verdict. I visually cannot make the final call, because the citation tables do not reproduce the reference drawings, and I do not have the drawing sheets of D977625 itself. That limitation is carried forward from the earlier section and is material — see §7.

2. The controlling date framework

§102 for this patent is governed by the AIA (filed 2018-09-28). Everything turns on the effective filing date, which is itself contested here:

Theory C is not fanciful for design continuations: changing which surfaces are drawn in solid vs. broken lines in a continuation creates a new claim scope, and §120 benefit is available only if the earlier disclosure describes that same design. In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013); In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998); cf. Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (altering surface treatment/claimed extent between family members shifts the scope). This is precisely the kind of family where the three members (D809646, D832995, D977625) divide up different solid-line scopes — which is the usual reason to file design continuations at all.

Practical effect: ~20 of the 44 cited references are prior art under all three theories. About 7 more become available only under Theories B or C — and those seven are the interesting ones, because they include a Medela breast pump design and Chiaro's own breast pump application. This is the single most important structural insight in the file.

A second exception layer matters: §102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership) and §102(b)(1)(A) (inventor-originating disclosure within the grace period) knock out the entire Willow/Exploramed family, including the parent design D832995 — and knock out the Engadget non-patent citation.

3. Tier 1 — Prior art under every theory (publicly available before 2016-02-10)

These are the genuine §102(a)(1) candidates. 20 references.

4. Tier 2 — "Secret prior art" available only under §102(a)(2) (effectively filed earlier, published later)

These were not publicly available before 2016-02-10, but under §102(a)(2) a U.S. patent or published application is prior art as of its effective filing date. Five are genuine candidates; the rest are excluded by the §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception.

5. Tier 3 — Family/applicant references (excluded from prior art)

6. Tier 4 — Post-dating references: not prior art unless the §120 chain breaks

This is where the priority question does real work. Each entry below is excluded on the 2016-02-10 theory, but becomes a §102(a)(2) (or, for issuances after the filing date, §102(a)(1)) candidate under Theory B (2018-01-05) and/or Theory C (2018-09-28).

7. Non-patent citation (the only one of record)

"Willow Smart Breast Pump: Hands On," posted by Engadget, YouTube, posting date 2017-01-05, retrieval date 2021-11-15, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvD6kv73GQ (cited as Year: 2017).

• §102 status: Not prior art on any theory.
  • Under Theory A (EFD 2016-02-10), the video post-dates the effective filing date → cannot be §102(a)(1) art at all.
  • Under Theories B/C, it falls within the one-year grace period (2017-01-05 is less than a year before 2018-01-05 and before 2018-09-28) and shows the inventor's/owner's own product → excepted under §102(b)(1)(A).
• Why it's in the file anyway: it is the corroborating public-use/on-sale evidence for the 2016-02-10 conception/reduction-to-practice timeline. Expect it to be used defensively against the priority-attack theories in §6 — i.e., as proof that the claimed appearance existed as of early 2016, which helps defend Theory A and therefore helps knock out USD814017S1.
• Note its examiner retrieval date of 2021-11-15, ~4.5 years after posting, which is consistent with it having been located by the examiner rather than submitted as an IDS item.

8. Bottom line: the relevant prior art, ranked

References that cannot anticipate D977625 on any theory (they are in the file but not §102 art against claim 1): RU67575U1 (glass furnace — records defect), USD581416S1 (computer mouse), USD871410S1 (computer mouse), US9830005B2 (empathetic computing), US2005/0080376A1 (installation tool), US2014/0052056A1 and US2015/0217033A1 and US2018/0008758A1 (internal valves/mechanisms), US2021/0030934A1 and US2021/0393861A1 (never prior art), USD939718S1 (never prior art), and the five family references (USD809646S1, USD832995S1, USD828542S1, US2018/0333523A1, US2018/0339089A1) plus the four Willow utility family members and the three Exploramed publications — all excluded by §102(b)(2)(C).

9. Explicit uncertainties

1. I could not view the drawing sheets of D977625 or of any cited reference. The Google Patents citation tables and Justia records list bibliographic data and titles only. Every "leading anticipatory candidate" ranking above is based on subject-matter identity and date eligibility, not on the ordinary-observer visual comparison that §102 actually requires. The final §102 call cannot be made from this record alone.
2. Examiner reliance vs. citation. These references were before the examiner (they carry the "*" cited-by-examiner marker), and D977625 issued without rejection over them. Being in the file is not evidence of anticipatory effect.
3. Priority chain is the pivot, and it is unresolved in my sources. Google lists 2016-02-10 but expressly labels it "an assumption." Whether the '625's specific solid-line embodiment is described in the 2016-02-10 disclosure determines whether USD814017S1, US2018/0104396A1, US2018/0361040A1, US11,376,352B2, US2018/0008758A1 and the four Willow 2018-family publications are in or out. Verifying this requires the actual drawing sheets of 29/554,291, 29/632,106 and 29/664,908 side by side, plus the file wrapper.
4. Two citation lists with different counts (40 vs. 44) appear on the same authoritative page; I reconciled them as a 40-item subset plus four entries, but I did not verify that reconciliation against the printed patent or a file-wrapper IDS.
5. RU67575U1 is listed with the title "BATHROOM GLASS FURNACE." I classify it as a records defect/non-analogous art based on the title as written, without retrieving the original document. Consistent with the strict-interpretation rule, I did not auto-correct or recharacterize it as a breast-pump reference — but it should be pulled and read before being relied on either way.
6. Third-party invalidity contentions would be the most direct source of any prior art actually asserted against 'D625. The Willow v. Chiaro docket (2:23-cv-00229-JRG) shows an agreed order focusing prior art (Dkt. 67, entered 2024-07-04) and a Markman order (Dkt. 157) that carried the design patents, but I did not retrieve Chiaro's invalidity contentions or its expert reports. Those documents almost certainly contain a curated prior-art set specific to 'D625 that may differ from the examiner-cited set analyzed here — that is the highest-value next retrieval.
7. Date inconsistency in the task environment (task says 2026-04-26; the authoritative record fetch is stamped 2026-09-28). Noted, not resolved.

I'll verify key facts about the prior art references and any invalidity/contentions record before analyzing.

Let me check two more things: the outcome of the litigation and whether D977625 was ever formally challenged.

Threshold: what "§ 103 obviousness" means for this patent, and what the page's "Prior Art" list actually is

Two corrections to the framing before the analysis.

1. Today's date conflict. The task header says April 26, 2026; the authoritative full text and the prior section are stamped 2026-09-28. I use the 2026-09-28 record as current, and flag that the litigation status in the prior section is now stale (see §7 below).

2. The page's "Prior Art" area is not one list. Google Patents renders four visually similar blocks that have entirely different legal significance:

The task says to use "the results from the Prior Art section." I do — but only the Citations block is legally usable, and even inside that block a large fraction is disqualified. That filtering is the first substantive step of the analysis, not a preliminary.

1. Legal framework (which is not the utility-patent § 103 test)

Because D977625 has one claim ("The ornamental design for a breast pump, as shown and described.") and no written description of structure, § 103 analysis proceeds under the design-specific doctrine:

• PHOSITA = an ordinary designer of the article at issue (breast pumps), not an ordinary observer. In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214 (CCPA 1981).
• Step 1 (primary reference): identify "something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design." In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982).
• Step 2 (secondary references): the secondary reference must be "so related to the primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other." In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
• Ultimate question: whether the design as a whole would have been obvious. Decomposing the design into individual features and finding each feature old is improper. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), applies, but its "predictable variations" rationale operates on visual predictability, not mechanical predictability.

Two consequences for this patent specifically:

• There is no "claim element" to map. Every ground below is a visual-comparison ground, not an element-mapping ground.
• The broken-line disclaimer is a claim-scope carve-out with § 103 consequences. The patent states: "The dash-dash broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the breast pump that form no part of the claimed design." The obviousness comparison is therefore limited to the solid-line remainder. If, as is typical for this family, the broken lines cover the breast flange/milk container and possibly the lower body, then the claimed subject matter may reduce to a shell/housing silhouette plus surface ornamentation — which materially changes which references are the best primary references (see Ground 3).

2. Filtering the Citations block: which references are actually available as prior art

The effective priority date on the page is 2016-02-10. Anything with an effective filing/publication date on or after that date is unavailable (absent a § 102(b) exception analysis), and the same-family items are disqualified outright.

2a. Available as prior art (pre-2016-02-10)

2b. Listed on the page but not available

• Same-family / same inventive entity (disqualified — not "by another," and no earlier effective date): US D809,646 S; US D832,995 S; US D828,542 S; US 2016/0206794 A1; US 2017/0072118 A1; US 2017/0173232 A1; US 2018/0333523 A1; US 2018/0339089 A1; US 11,185,619 B2. These are the Willow/Exploramed NC7 ancestors and siblings of D977625 itself — D809646 and D832995 are in the very same continuation chain. Citing them against D977625 is legally incoherent.
• Post-priority: US 2018/0008758 A1 (eff. 2016-07-08); US D814,017 S (Medela, filed 2016-04-14 — two months after the 2016-02-10 priority; tantalizing but unavailable); US 2018/0361040 A1 (Chiaro, 2017-06-15); US D871,410 S; US D939,718 S; US 11,376,352 B2; and all US 2021/00xxxxx publications.
• Field-disparate: RU 67,575 U1 (a bathroom glass furnace); US D581,416 S (Belkin computer mouse); US 9,830,005 B2 (SomniQ, empathetic computing).
• Non-Patent Citation: the Engadget video, posted 2017-01-05 — eleven months after the priority date. It is not § 102(a)(1) art unless the priority claim fails (see § 5).

3. Grounds of obviousness

Each ground states primary reference → secondary reference(s) → motivation.

Ground 1 — Primary reference alone: US D496,723 S (Whisper Wear, "Breast pump")

This is the single strongest § 103 candidate on the face of the record, and it is unusually clean:

• Identical statutory category and title. Both are US design patents titled "Breast pump."
• Identical claim language. D977625 claims "The ornamental design for a breast pump, as shown and described." D496723 claims the same sentence.
• Identical article, class, and field of search. D496723 is classified D24/109 (lacteal extractor) with a field of search of D24/109; 604/74, 76, 75 — the same field a breast-pump designer searches.
• Identical environment of use. US 2002/0193731 A1 — the Whisper Wear utility filing whose figures show the very design claimed in D496723 — describes the device as an "integral device held against the breast and underneath clothing so as to keep the integral device hidden," with a "dome-shaped housing." That is the same in-bra, low-profile, rounded-shell design problem D977625 addresses.

Argument if the drawings match: if the overall visual impression of D496723's solid-line disclosure is a rounded, breast-conforming housing with a central breast-receiving opening, then the differences between it and D977625 are, at most, proportional and surface-ornamentation differences — "predictable variations" a designer of breast-pump housings would apply as a matter of routine design choice.

Honest caveat (this is the crux): I could not inspect either drawing sheet. A design patent for a 2003 Whisper Wear device, which per the companion utility filing collected milk in a plastic collection bag and was held by a harness/strap, may well present a materially different overall appearance — a domed cup with a bag outlet is not the same visual thing as a self-contained ovoid unit with a central flange and an integrated container. If the primary reference's overall appearance differs materially, the Rosen step fails and all downstream § 103 grounds collapse, because a § 103 rejection cannot be built without a primary reference that is "basically the same."

Ground 2 — US D496,723 S in view of US 2002/0193731 A1 (both Whisper Wear; underlying design and its own utility disclosure)

• Primary: D496723 (the design).
• Secondary: the '731 publication's figures (dome-shaped housing, hat-shaped flange with chamber/brim portion, integral construction).
• Motivation: These are the same inventive entity and the same product line — the '731 specification is the design's own written disclosure and expressly states the design intent: a housing form that is hidden under clothing. That is an explicit, in-field, in-document design rationale, not a hindsight reconstruction. Modifying the D496723 shell toward the lower-profile, smooth dome shown in the '731 drawing figures is exactly the "application of ornamental features from one to the other" that In re Harvey permits.

Ground 3 — Primary reference directed at the broken-line-narrowed claim scope: US D683,843 S (Jackel Int'l, "Motor unit for a breast pump") or US D744,086 S (Pigeon, "Breast pump")

Because D977625 disclaims everything shown in dash-dash broken lines, the operative comparison may be to a small, self-contained, rounded pump unit shell rather than to an entire pumping assembly. If so:

• Primary: D683,843 S — an ornamental motor unit for a breast pump (Jackel/Tommee Tippee). A motor unit is precisely what the broken lines on D977625 appear designed to exclude.
• Secondary: US D540,939 S and US D565,174 S (Medela "Breastpump housing") and US D744,086 S (Pigeon "Breast pump").
• Motivation: All are the same field of endeavor (breast pump housings, Class D24/109), and Medela's two ornamental housing patents establish that the ordinary designer in this field routinely renders breast-pump housings as smooth, rounded, softly contoured, essentially unornamented shells. Applying that established treatment to a compact motor unit is a routine, predictable ornamental choice. Under Durling, the "so related" requirement is satisfied because the references are from the same field and would be consulted by the same designer.

Ground 4 — Grounds 1–3 plus US 2014/0052056 A1 (DAO Health) and US 2015/0217033 A1 (Pollen)

• Add the DAO Health in-bra, self-contained-reservoir device (2014) and the Pollen in-bra collector (2015) as evidence of the design direction immediately preceding the 2016-02-10 priority.
• Motivation: KSR "design incentives" and "market pressures," applied visually: by 2014–2015 the field was converging on a compact, rounded, self-contained in-bra unit — a single visual gestalt — so a designer seeking a discretely wearable pump had an obvious, well-signposted target. The near-simultaneous independent arrival of Willow, Chiaro/Elvie, Medela (D814017, filed 2016-04-14), DAO, and later Momcozy at substantially the same ovoid in-bra form is the design-law analogue of KSR's simultaneous-invention reasoning and is probative of obviousness.

Ground 5 — US 2013/0023821 A1 (Khalil) as primary reference

Not on this page's citation list, but identified in my search of the parallel record, and I include it because it is (a) pre-2016 art (published 2013-01-24) and (b) unusually probative.

• Chiaro's own PTAB filing against its later U.S. 11,357,893 states that "Khalil discloses a self-contained, in-bra wearable pump that looks very similar to the in-bra wearable pump of the '893 patent," and describes the '893 embodiment as a housing and container forming a shape that "roughly conforms with the shape of a tear-drop shaped breast[,] . . . which allows the breast pump 100 to substantially fit within the cup of a user's bra." That description is a close verbal match to the silhouette asserted against the Elvie Pump, which is in turn the product Willow accused of being "identical to, or substantially the same as" D977625 (Compl. ¶ 143).
• Motivation: same field, same article, same environment of use (in-bra discretion). If Khalil's figures show a rounded/ovoid housing with a central flange, it is a Rosen-quality primary reference on its own.

Caveat: that quotation is adversary advocacy in an IPR petition, and it compares Khalil to Chiaro's design, not to D977625's drawing sheets. It is a lead, not proof.

4. Why an ordinary designer would have combined these references

Consolidating the motivation analysis across grounds:

1. Same field of endeavor, small and crowded. All of the meaningful references sit in Class D24/109 or in breast-pump-specific art. The field is neither sprawling nor remote; an ordinary designer of breast pumps would consult Whisper Wear, Medela, Pigeon, Jackel, and DAO Health as a matter of course.
2. Identical article and identical environment of use. Whisper Wear's own disclosure articulates the same design objective as D977625's family: a device worn under clothing so as to be "hidden." The Federal Circuit's "so related" test is easily met where the references describe the same article used the same way.
3. An explicit, documented design incentive in the art itself. The Willow specification quoted in the E.D. Tex. claim construction order (Dkt. 157) states the need for a pump "discrete by not exposing the breast of the user and being invisible or nearly unnoticeable when worn." A design brief to be invisible when worn drives a designer directly toward: minimize protrusion, soften/eliminate surface seams and hardware ornamentation, adopt a rounded breast-conforming shell, and centralize the flange opening. That is the visual content of the claimed design.
4. Predictable visual variations. Resizing a housing's proportions, softening contours, reducing applied ornamentation, and repositioning an opening are among the most predictable acts in industrial design. KSR teaches that where a variation is predictable, it is obvious.
5. Convergence. The industry's independent convergence on essentially one in-bra form within a 24-month window around the priority date is powerful objective evidence that the form was the obvious solution, not the inventive one.

5. The priority-date vulnerability — the most consequential finding here

D977625 is a continuation of 29/632,106 (→ D832995) and the third link in a chain rooted at 29/554,291 (→ D809646), all claiming 2016-02-10. But D977625 was filed 2018-09-28 — roughly 31 months later.

For the 2016-02-10 priority to hold, the design claimed in 29/664,908 must be supported under § 112 by the 2016-02-10 parent disclosure. Where design continuations add or restyle figures, that support is often questionable. If the priority claim fails, the effective filing date moves to 2018-09-28, and a large new prior-art set opens up:

This is the single highest-leverage line of attack on D977625: it does not depend on the drawing-comparison ambiguities that weaken Grounds 1–5, only on a § 112 written-description comparison of the 2018 figures against the 2016 figures.

6. Counterarguments that a challenger must overcome

1. No confirmed Rosen-quality primary reference. I cannot verify from the text available that any single reference is "basically the same" as D977625's drawing sheets. This is fatal to any § 103 ground if unresolved. This is my largest stated uncertainty and it is a limitation of my inputs, not a conclusion about the art.
2. § 282 presumption of validity. D977625 issued over the Examiner's consideration of the entire Whisper Wear family (D496723, D496725, '731, '486, '386) and Medela's housings and Jackel's motor unit. A § 103 theory built on exactly those references must explain why the Examiner's consideration was wrong — and in an IPR context would face § 325(d) discretionary denial.
3. Whole-design rule. A challenger may not show that reference A discloses the top, reference B the sides, and reference C the front. High Point Design; Apple v. Samsung. The combination must produce the claimed overall appearance.
4. Functional dictation cuts both ways. The rounded, breast-conforming, low-profile form is heavily dictated by the need to fit inside a bra cup. That supports obviousness (a narrow design space means any designer lands in the same place) but also means those functional features are discounted in the comparison and validity may turn on a small residue of ornamentation.
5. Field-disparate citations weaken any omnibus prior-art list. RU67575U1 (bathroom glass furnace), USD581416S1 (computer mouse), and US9830005B2 (empathetic computing) should be excluded from any serious ground; their presence in the citation list reflects Examiner form, not analogous-art relevance.
6. Secondary considerations (Graham factors) favor the patentee:
   • Commercial success / industry praise: the Willow pump's reception, and Elvie's awards (Red Dot, Good Design, International Design Awards) for substantially the same in-bra form.
   • Copying: Willow pleaded that Elvie's Elvie Pump is "identical to, or substantially the same as" the patented design (Compl. ¶ 143) — copying is a classic nonobviousness factor, though here it is also Willow's infringement theory, so the same allegation is doing double duty.
   • Nexus problem: for a design patent, the nexus must run to the ornamental appearance, not to the pumping technology. Willow's commercial success was driven substantially by function — silence, cordlessness, hands-free operation, app integration. Absent evidence that purchasers bought the product because of how it looks, the secondary-considerations case is weak. This is a real vulnerability for Willow and a real opportunity for a challenger.

7. Contradiction with the prior section — flagged

The prior section concluded there was "no CAFC 2026 docket" and treated the 2023 E.D. Tex. case as "still the operative record." My searches supersede that:

• Chiaro Technology Ltd (Elvie) entered UK administration in March 2025 and its business and assets were sold to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, a Willow Innovations subsidiary, with all 178 employees transferring (FTI Consulting as administrators; reported 2025-03-28 and 2025-04-07).
• Chiaro's patents — including the ones Chiaro asserted against Willow and against Momcozy — are now Willow-owned, as confirmed in a PTAB petition: "as a result of a U.K. equivalent of a U.S. bankruptcy proceeding, certain assets of former patent owner, Chiaro Technology Limited, including the patent at issue in this IPR, were acquired by Willow Blossom Holdco Limited." This is consistent with the page's forward citation US D1114241 S1 (2026-02-17), assigned to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited.
• Consequence for D977625: the cross-litigation that drove the invalidity/validity dispute over D977625 has been extinguished by acquisition, not adjudicated. No court has ruled on D977625's validity, and no IPR/reexamination of D977625 was found. Its validity is therefore untested, which increases (not decreases) the practical relevance of the grounds above — the challenge, if any, will come from third parties (e.g., the Momcozy/Shenzhen Root/Lutejiacheng side, which has been filing IPRs against Chiaro-now-Willow patents), not from Elvie.

8. Bottom line

• Best single reference: US D496,723 S (Whisper Wear, "Breast pump," 2004) — same title, same claim sentence, same class, same article, and an environment of use ("hidden underneath clothing") identical to D977625's stated design objective. Whether it succeeds as a Rosen primary reference turns entirely on a drawing comparison I could not perform.
• Best combination: D496723 S + US 2002/0193731 A1 (same entity; supplies the low-profile "dome-shaped housing" figures and explicit discretion rationale) + US D540,939 S / US D565,174 S / US D744,086 S (establishing the field's routine smooth rounded unornamented housing treatment) ± US 2014/0052056 A1 and US 2015/0217033 A1 (establishing the 2014–2015 convergence on compact in-bra units).
• Strongest independent attack (not a § 103 ground): challenge the 2016-02-10 priority claim on § 112 written-description grounds. If it fails, D809646 (Willow's own ancestor) and the 2017-01-05 Engadget video become prior art, and D977625 is attacked with far cleaner references.
• No ground can be responsibly asserted as a conclusion. A § 103 determination for a design patent is a visual determination, and the drawing sheets of D977625 and of each primary-reference candidate were not available in the text I was given. Anything above is a structured hypothesis, correctly framed but not visually verified.

Uncertainties, stated explicitly: (i) I could not view any drawing sheets, so all Rosen step-1 conclusions are provisional; (ii) the page's assignee/priority flags carry Google's own accuracy disclaimer; (iii) the Khalil quotation comes from an opposing party's IPR petition; (iv) I found no IPR, PGR, or reexamination of D977625 — an absence of search results, not a verified negative.