US 10688229

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing.

Preliminary note on scope and method

I ran targeted searches against Google Patents' full text of US 10,688,229, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, PTAB/ITC 2025–2026 materials, and E.D. Tex. complaint excerpts. One important limitation up front: the authoritative full text I retrieved for this patent includes the bibliographic data, classification, and specification, but the claim set itself was not included in the retrieved text. I therefore cannot give you verbatim independent-claim language with high confidence. I flag exactly where that matters below rather than reconstructing claim language from memory.

Bibliographic summary — US 10,688,229 B2

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10688229/en ; https://patents.justia.com/assignee/willow-innovations-inc

The record also shows the '229 sits in a large continuing family — later US filings claiming priority include US 16/667,749 (→ US 10,722,624 B2), US 16/934,380, US 18/082,620, US 18/082,776 (→ US 11,660,380 B2), US 18/367,649 (→ US 12,370,292 B2), and US 19/237,230. Note that those later-issued patents — not the '229 — are the ones currently being asserted in the 2026 ITC action (see below).

Abstract

The abstract associated with this patent family reads:

"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."

Confidence note: this is the family abstract text as published on sibling/continuation documents in the same family (e.g., US 2016/0206794 A1 and US 11,400,189 B2). I did not independently display the abstract field as it appears on the US 10,688,229 B2 face page, so treat the wording as family-level rather than line-verified against the '229 cover sheet. The specification's own summary language is: "The present disclosure generally relates to a portable, hands-free, discrete, self-powered and energy efficient breast pump system and method for collecting milk from a breast of a nursing mother."

Plain-language overview of the disclosure

The '229 specification describes a wearable, self-contained breast pump built around a resilient squeeze-tube rather than a conventional rotary vacuum pump drawing on a remote collection bottle:

• Breast adapter (10) with a compliant silicone seal region (12) that seals against the breast/areola, and a rigid or semi-rigid inner nipple housing (14).
• Resilient tube (32) in fluid communication with the adapter, acted on by two piston-like compression elements (36, 38) driven independently by drivers (44, 46). Suction is generated largely by the elastic spring-back of the tube as a compression element retracts; milk is then driven forward under positive pressure by re-compression — hence "expressed under suction, expulsed under positive pressure."
• One-way valve (50) (e.g., duckbill) between tube and container to prevent backflow and hold vacuum; optional pressure-relief valve near the nipple.
• Controller (52) + pressure sensor (54) forming a feedback loop, plus display (250) and manual controls (252); battery-powered.
• Collection container (60) that is flexible, bra-wearable, detachable, and positionable around or behind the pumping structure; sized/shaped so the whole system can sit in a brassiere.
• Stated operating suction ranges include about −60 mm Hg, −120 to −450 mm Hg, −180 to −400 mm Hg, and −50 to −60 mm Hg (as latch/residual levels).
• Additional features: vibration and heating elements on the breast, massage drivers, non-contact (magnetic/optical/strain) pressure sensing, milk-volume estimation from pressure change, leak detection, and automatic shut-off.

Independent claims — what I can and cannot tell you

What I cannot confirm: I was unable to retrieve the verified, verbatim text of the '229's independent claims (claim 1 and any other independent claims), nor even the total claim count, from the sources available in this session. I am not going to reconstruct them; doing so from a related patent's claims would be exactly the kind of auto-correction your instructions prohibit.

What I did find, with a caution. A complaint in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.), quotes an independent claim as:

"[preamble] An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump milk from a human breast, the system comprising: [1a] a breast pump configured to fit within a bra, the breast pump including: … [1c] a vacuum pumping mechanism contained within the housing and configured to pump the milk from the human breast…"

Caution: in the excerpt I retrieved, that claim recitation appears in the count addressing U.S. Patent No. 10,xxx,'005, not the '229. I could not confirm that this language is the '229's claim 1, and I am not asserting that it is. Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4449536](/patent/4449536)/2-23-cv-00229_txed_complaint_exparte.pdf

The same source shows the case asserted several Willow patents including a '005 patent, a '619 patent, US 10,722,624, D995, and D625. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 10688229 lists it in case 2:23-cv-00229, Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., E.D. Tex. (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10688229), so the '229 appears to have been part of Willow's wearable-breast-pump campaign against Elvie's manufacturer, but the specific claim language asserted for the '229 was not in the excerpt I retrieved.

Litigation and post-grant status (as of the retrieved 2025–2026 record)

• No Federal Circuit appeal involving 10,688,229 was found for 2026 in my searches. The CAFC/CourtListener-style queries for "10,688,229" plus "Federal Circuit 2026" returned zero results. I cannot rule out a non-indexed or differently-captioned appeal, but there is no affirmative evidence of one.
• No IPR on the '229 was found. The 2026 PTAB activity I located concerns a different Willow patent: IPR2025-00554, Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco Limited / Willow Innovations, Inc., on U.S. Patent No. 11,806,454 B2 (institution granted 2025-10-14).
• 2026 ITC action does not include the '229. Investigation No. 337-TA-1522, Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof (complaint filed 2026-08-20; instituted 2026-09-21/22), asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; and D1,031,993 — all family descendants of the '229 priority chain, but not the '229 itself. Source: 91 FR 60645 (Sept. 24, 2026), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2026-19586/

Bottom line

US 10,688,229 B2, "Breast pump system and methods," is a Willow Innovations (originally Exploramed NC7) patent filed 2016-06-13 with a 2014-07-22 priority date and a 2020-06-23 issue date, directed to a hands-free, in-bra breast pump that generates suction via the elastic rebound of a compressed resilient conduit and ejects milk under positive pressure into a bra-wearable collection container. It is listed as Active with a 2036-07-02 adjusted expiration and is flagged as part of a litigated family, appearing in Willow v. Chiaro Technology (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229).

Explicit uncertainties: (1) I could not verify the '229's abstract wording line-by-line against its own cover page — the text given is family-level; (2) I could not retrieve verified independent-claim text or claim count for the '229, and I decline to supply claim language by inference; (3) my "no CAFC 2026 appeal" conclusion is based on zero returned results, not on a confirmed docket check of the Federal Circuit. If you need claim-level certainty, the authoritative source is the USPTO PatentCenter document for application 15/180,345 (or the granted B2 specification document), which should be pulled directly.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10688229 across patent litigation databases.

Strong leads. Let me confirm the case outcome and check for any related proceedings (IPR, other suits) involving the '229 patent.

Answer (as of April 26, 2026)

Short answer: Yes — one litigation is known to involve U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 ("the '229 patent"): Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie), No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.). It settled and was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025. I found no other district court case, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding in which the '229 patent is identified as asserted.

Note: the case number (2:23-cv-00229) is coincidental and unrelated to the patent number 10,688,229. Also, do not confuse it with U.S. Patent No. 10,106,829, which appears in unrelated litigation (e.g., a Delaware declaratory-judgment counterclaim mentioning Nivagen) — that is a different patent and is outside the scope of your request.

Case detail

Sources:

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 10688229 — lists a single case: Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., 2:23-cv-00229, E.D. Tex.: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10688229
• DocketAlarm docket for 2:23-cv-00229 (filed May 24, 2023; terminated Sept. 12, 2025; Dkt. 75 attaching the '229 patent as Exhibit B; Dkt. 161–162 settlement stay; Dkt. 175–176 dismissal with prejudice): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/Willow_Innovations_Inc._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/
• PTAB papers referencing the same E.D. Tex. case and its Feb. 3, 2025 settlement stay: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556499](/patent/1556499)/download-documents
• Complaint/claim-chart analysis of the Elvie Pump accusations: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:23-cv-00229/doc/analysis/64

Things I checked and did not find (so as not to overstate)

• No other district court case naming 10,688,229 as an asserted patent. The Stanford database shows only the Chiaro/E.D. Tex. case.
• Not in the 2026 ITC action. In re Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1522 (instituted Sept. 22, 2026; complaint filed Aug. 20, 2026 by Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. against 12 respondents) asserts U.S. 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; and D1,031,993 — not the '229 patent. https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2026/09/24/2026-19586.html
• No PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding against the '229 patent identified. The IPR activity I found near this family concerns other patents (e.g., IPR2024-00953 involving U.S. 11,413,380, and IPR2025-00554 involving U.S. 11,806,454), and the "Shenzhen Root Technology, Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00631 (W.D. Wash.)" case is likewise tied to the '380 patent, not the '229. I could not verify a PTAB challenge specifically to 10,688,229; treat that as "none found," not a definitive negative. (Google Patents' Darts-IP link does flag a "first worldwide family litigation filed" for family 55163611, consistent with the Willow v. Chiaro suit.)

Practical note

The '229 patent (app. 15/180,345, filed June 13, 2016, priority July 22, 2014) was asserted only against Chiaro/Elvie, which later entered UK administration and whose Elvie brand now sits within the Willow group (Willow's own IP-notice page carries both Willow® and Elvie® marks). That commercial consolidation is consistent with the Feb. 2025 settlement and Sept. 2025 dismissal with prejudice, though the settlement terms are not public.

I'll research whether any AIA trial proceedings exist for this patent, since the ODP block reports none.

Litigation context found. Now let me check specifically for AIA trials on the '229 patent and on its family.

No IPR against the '229 patent has surfaced yet. Let me search PTAB dockets specifically for the '229 and its sibling patents.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 10,688,229 — the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and targeted web searches of PTAB/PTACTS materials surfaced none; so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied, which means the patent has never been PTAB-tested at all — it is neither "hardened" nor "narrowed," it is simply unfought at the Board (its validity has been contested only in district court, where the public record I could retrieve does not show a final judgment).

No proceedings to report

Because the canonical structured list is empty, there is no proceeding number, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to describe for the '229 patent. I am deliberately not supplying a proceeding number, panel, or FWD summary, because none exists in the records I can reach. Two caveats, stated plainly:

1. Absence in my searches is not proof of absence for a petition filed in the last few weeks; the ODP list is the authoritative baseline and it is empty. If a very recent petition exists, it has not been indexed.
2. The '229 patent is in active litigation, so a future petition is a live possibility (see below).

Adjacent proceedings on file (NOT on US 10,688,229 — for context only)

These are AIA/reexam matters in the same wearable-breast-pump patent war, but none challenges the '229 patent; every one of them targets patents on the Chiaro/Elvie side of the dispute. Do not conflate them with the '229.

Note on the '380 IPR: the Patent Owner's brief in that matter states the Willow case against Elvie was set for jury selection on 2025-03-17. That is the same E.D. Tex. case in which the '229 patent is asserted — i.e., the '229 has been a district-court validity target, never a PTAB target.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,688,229 has been canceled, confirmed, or even institution-reviewed by the Board. There is no FWD, no certificate, and no claim-level adjudication to point to. The patent issued 2020-06-23, has an adjusted expiration of 2036-07-02, and remains Active in the register. Given the 2014-07-22 priority date, the PGR window closed nine months after grant (i.e., on/about 2021-03-23), and CBM is doubly unavailable — a wearable breast pump is not a "financial product or service," and the CBM transitional program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16. Practically, IPR is the only AIA vehicle left for a challenger.

Estoppel landscape: none has accrued. Because no IPR reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(1) and § 315(e)(2) estoppel are not triggered for anyone — no petitioner is barred from raising any ground in a civil action, and no petitioner's privies are estopped before the Office. For a defendant being asserted against today, that means the full prior-art field remains open on both fronts, subject only to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of an infringement complaint (and the district court's own invalidity-contentions rules). Conversely, a defendant that does file an IPR and takes it to FWD accepts real estoppel exposure for grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised.

Pattern signals. (a) The '229 patent is asserted in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.), filed 2023-05-24, together with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,816, 10,625,005, 10,434,228, 10,722,624, 11,185,619 and design patents D832,995 and D977,625; Elvie counterclaimed on U.S. 11,260,151. The court construed the '229 and '624 together (they share a specification and concern a controller switching operational modes based on a tube pressure sensor) — see the Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157. (b) The PTAB activity in this space runs the other direction: Momcozy/Shenzhen Root has been petitioning against Elvie's patents, and Elvie in turn asserted its patents against Momcozy in W.D. Wash. (2:23-cv-631). (c) I found no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain for the '229. (d) Cautionary/dispositive context to verify: 2025 filings show a new owner of record for Chiaro's '893 patent, Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, which self-identifies as "Willow," and Willow's own site now advertises the Willow® and Elvie® brands together. If the Willow and Elvie breast-pump businesses are now under common control (my inference from those documents, not a confirmed corporate fact), the E.D. Tex. case asserting the '229 against Elvie has very likely been resolved or mooted, and the '229 would be used going forward against third parties rather than sister entities.

Recommended next steps

• Do not expect an IPR-based shortcut, and do not build one on the Elvie IPRs. There is no '229 FWD to link to, quote, or rely on, and no prior petitioner. Any argument that "the claims are already canceled" is unsupportable for this patent — the claims-invalidated playbook does not apply here.
• Treat the patent as presumptively valid and harden your § 282 case in district court. Your best existing roadmap is the E.D. Tex. claim construction order (Dkt. 157), which construes the '229's "operational mode"/pressure-sensing terms alongside the '624; study it before reading your product onto any claim.
• If you are a newly served defendant, calendar the § 315(b) date now — one year from service of the complaint (or from service of an amended complaint adding the patent). That is the only remaining AIA door, and it closes silently. An IPR petitioning window, if you want one, has to be built well inside that year given the ~6-month institution decision timeline and the statutory ~12-month trial deadline from institution.
• Watch for a petition to appear. A commercially significant, in-litigation wearable-breast-pump patent with a 2036 expiry is a natural IPR target; the absence of any petition since the 2023-05-24 filing is the anomaly here, not the presence. Monitor PTAB E2E / PTACTS for new IPR numbers and re-run the ODP query periodically, since the ODP ingest lags.
• Confirm the corporate picture before investing in a defense posture. Verify with the USPTO Assignment database whether the '229 has been assigned (e.g., to a Willow holdco) since the last recorded assignment (Willow Innovations, Inc., 2020-12-08), and check the E.D. Tex. docket for a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment in 2:23-cv-00229. Real party in interest and standing questions turn on that, and it also determines whether the assertion risk now comes from a merged Willow/Elvie entity or a successor.

Verification note: the '229 proceeding count of zero is grounded in the structured ODP block supplied with this task plus searches that returned no petition, institution decision, or FWD naming US 10,688,229. The adjacent matters above are reported as they appear in public filings; where I could not confirm an outcome (e.g., institution in IPR2024-00953, the corporate relationship behind "Willow Blossom Holdco Limited"), I have flagged it rather than assume it.

I'll verify the assignment record and litigation posture against public sources before writing up.

Let me try to pin down reel/frame numbers and correspondent details, plus the original assignee's corporate history.

Ownership reconstruction — US 10,688,229 B2 ("Breast pump system and methods")

Data-limitation note up front, because it affects the requested output format: the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search index (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov, assignment.uspto.gov) is a JavaScript application that I could not render through live retrieval, and no third-party mirror I reached republished reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for this patent. The assignment events below are therefore sourced from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the assignment record (assignee names, conveyance type, and recording dates). Reel/frame and correspondent fields are marked "not retrievable" rather than guessed. Anyone needing the reel/frame and the recording attorney must pull the record directly at the Assignment Center; the events are enumerated below so the pull is a five-minute confirmation task.

Inventors

Named inventors per the face of the patent (US 10,688,229 B2, application 15/180,345, filed 2016-06-13, priority 2014-07-22):

Pattern notes (evidence-based only):

• No mass-departure / fire-sale precursor. The inventors are the founders and staff of the originating venture, and at least Makower and Chang remained associated with the company through its Series C/D rounds and product launch (CB Insights, Tracxn profiles list Makower as Founder & Chairman and Chang as co-founder/CTO). I found no evidence of all inventors exiting within 12 months of filing.
• Assignment timing is routine, not distressed. All six inventors assigned to ExploraMed NC7, Inc. with recording on 2016-08-23, ~2 months after the 2016-06-13 filing — the standard startup employee/founder assignment. No trailing inventor assignment, no nunc pro tunc cleanup, no reissue/co-owner problem on the face of the record.
• One caution, flagged as unverified: the TTAB cancellation Exploramed NC7, Inc. v. Willow Apparel Pty Limited (Cancellation No. 92-065572) lists a correspondence address including shwang@smrh.com at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. That raises the possibility that inventor "Sharon Lam Wang" and Sheppard Mullin attorney "S. Wang" are the same person — i.e., a patent attorney named as a co-inventor. I have not verified this identity match. If true it is a prosecution-interest curiosity, not an NPE signal.

Original assignee

ExploraMed NC7, Inc. (Mountain View, CA) — original assignee on the issued patent (Google Patents legal events: "Application filed by Exploramed NC7 Inc," 2016-06-13; assignee on US 2016/0310650 A1).

• Line of business: design, development, and manufacture of a wearable, in-bra electric breast pump. NC7 was the project company incubated out of ExploraMed Development, LLC, Joshua Makower's medical-device incubator.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The assignee obtained FDA 510(k) clearance K161266 ("Athena Breast Pump," predating the Willow brand) and K191577 ("Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0," filed 2019-09-05, cleared 2020-06-30) — both naming Exploramed NC7, Inc., 1975 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 as the submitter, with contact sholmes@willowpump.com. The Willow wearable pump launched commercially in 2017 and was named to TIME's 25 Best Inventions list.
• Current status: Operating. On 2020-12-08 the entity recorded a change of name to Willow Innovations, Inc. (same corporation, same address, not a sale). Willow Innovations is a Series C/D venture-backed company (~$210–228M raised; NEA, Meritech, Lightstone, Endeavour Vision, Perceptive Advisors), headquartered at 1975 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View. One source (Seedtable) reports Willow acquired UK breast-pump maker Elvie in 2025 — I flag this at moderate confidence; it is corroborated in direction by the 2026 ITC filing naming both Willow Innovations and a UK entity, Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd., as complainants. Not in bankruptcy, not dissolved, no assignment for the benefit of creditors on the record.

Assignment timeline

All six entries below are from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment record. Reel/frame and correspondent are not retrievable from the sources available to me and are not fabricated below.

• Recorded 2016-08-23 (execution date not stated in the mirror) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Torosis, Michele; Chang, John Y.; Wang, Sharon Lam; Donohoe, Brendan M.; Makower, Joshua; Bright, Earl, II
  • Assignee: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable — cannot assess recurrence.
  • Context: In-bound founder/employee assignment capturing the inventors' rights in the application shortly after filing.

• Recorded 2020-09-17 (executed ~2020) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Securitization / venture-debt collateral — a credit facility collateralized by the IP; no transfer of ownership. Consistent with Perceptive Advisors appearing on the company's Series C cap table (Seedtable).

• Recorded 2020-12-08 (executed ~2020) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: ExploraMed NC7, Inc.
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Change of name only — corporate rebrand, same legal entity (the field is literally "CHANGE OF NAME," not a merger).

• Recorded 2022-09-09 (executed ~2022) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Willow Innovations, Inc.
  • Assignee: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Refinancing / securitization — new secured lender taking a collateral position over the IP.

• Recorded 2022-09-09 (executed ~2022) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP
  • Assignee: Willow Innovations, Inc. (formerly ExploraMed NC7, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Release of the 2020-09-17 security agreement, recorded the same day as the Madryn security interest — a lender swap, confirming the two 2022-09-09 records are one refinancing event.

• Recorded 2024-01-11 (executed ~2023-2024) — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
  • Assignee: Madryn Fund Administration, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Administrative reshuffle of collateral agent within the same lender family — again no ownership change; the patent stays with Willow Innovations, Inc.

Net position: ownership has never left the operating company. Every post-issuance record is either a change of corporate name (2020-12-08) or a security interest/release/reassignment of a security interest (2020-09-17; 2022-09-09 ×2; 2024-01-11). There is no assignment of title to a licensing entity, no third-party buyer, and no recorded transfer to Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. (which appears as an ITC co-complainant in 2026 — an intra-group co-complainant arrangement I could not tie to a recorded assignment for this patent).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10688229
    2014 : Priority date
    2016 : Filed by ExploraMed NC7
         : Inventors assign to ExploraMed NC7
    2017 : Willow wearable pump ships
    2020 : Patent issued
         : Perceptive security agreement
         : Name change to Willow Innovations
    2022 : Madryn security interest
         : Perceptive release recorded
    2023 : Willow sues Chiaro in E D Tex
    2024 : Madryn security interest reassigned
    2026 : Willow files ITC complaint 337-TA-1522

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No reel/frame moves title out of an operating assignee into a licensing-only LLC. The only post-issuance ownership-adjacent records are the 2020-12-08 Change of Name (ExploraMed NC7 → Willow Innovations, same entity, same Mountain View address) and four security-interest records (2020-09-17; 2022-09-09 ×2; 2024-01-11) that encumber rather than convey the patent. The "HoldCo" name in the chain — Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. — appears only as an ITC co-complainant, and I found no recorded assignment of the '229 title to it, so I decline to characterize it as a shell-entity transfer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, or any Spangenberg entity. On the contrary, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 10,688,229 records the only case involving this patent — Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., 2:23-cv-00229, E.D. Tex. — and tags the asserter category as "8 Product company" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10688229).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the six entries, so recurrence cannot be tested. This is a genuine gap, not a clean negative: the recording attorney on the 2020-09-17 Perceptive security agreement and the 2022-09-09 Madryn refinancing is the one field that would confirm or kill a lending-counsel pattern. Pull the record at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and check whether one firm recorded all four secured-party entries.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Four entries touch the collateral position over a 40-month span (2020-09-17 → 2024-01-11), but three of the four are secured-party records and the fourth is Madryn assigning its security interest to Madryn Fund Administration, LLC. Chained security interests from a refinancing are not chained LLC title transfers; ownership never moves.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The Chiaro/Elvie suit (2:23-cv-00229, E.D. Tex., filed 2023) was brought by Willow Innovations, Inc., whose title dates to the 2020-12-08 change of name — more than two years before filing. No assignment was recorded within six months of suit, and no standing-transfer pattern exists.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale, no ABC. The company was simultaneously raising equity (Series C Sept 2020, Series C extension April 2021, Series D 2022) and shipping product, which is the opposite of a distressed posture.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no NPE asserting on Willow's behalf. Willow is the plaintiff in its own name (E.D. Tex. 2023) and, with Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd., the complainant in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1522 (complaint filed 2026-08-20; instituted 2026-09-21) asserting US 11,660,380, 12,370,292, 11,813,388, D1,053,344 and D1,031,993 against importers including Shenzhen Root Innovation, Horigen, TPH Technology and Anker/Fantasia — i.e., against genuine commercial competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Two honest counter-signals worth recording (they cut toward "assertive," not toward "troll"): (a) Willow chose E.D. Tex. for the 2023 Chiaro/Elvie case, a venue conventional wisdom associates with plaintiff-friendly patent litigation; and (b) the 2026 ITC §337 action seeks exclusion orders against low-cost importers, the standard playbook of a premium domestic brand defending share. Neither converts a product company into an NPE.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The named patent owner has been Willow Innovations, Inc. — the same legal entity as original assignee ExploraMed NC7, Inc., which merely recorded a change of name on 2020-12-08 — and that entity designs, FDA-clears and ships the accused-claim-embodying product (Willow Wearable Breast Pump, 510(k) K161266 / K191577, cleared under the Exploramed NC7 name; commercial launch 2017). Every other recorded instrument is a security interest or its release (Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP, 2020-09-17; Madryn Health Partners II, 2022-09-09; Madryn Fund Administration, LLC, 2024-01-11), not a conveyance of title. Willow asserts the portfolio in its own name against actual competitors — Chiaro Technology Ltd./Elvie in 2:23-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.) and importers in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1522 (2026) — and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a "Product company" asserter. This is a venture-funded operating company with venture-debt encumbrances on its IP, and the NPE pattern set comes back empty on every signal I could test.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,688,229) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — and obtain the reel/frame and correspondent for the six entries listed above, which are the one material gap in this reconstruction.

I'll research the prior art references cited in US Patent 10,688,229 ("the '229 patent") by searching USPTO and patent databases.

Let me look at the specific citation lists for the '229 patent on Justia and Google Patents.

I have the beginning of the referenced-cited list. Let me get the complete citation list, including foreign documents and non-patent literature, from Google Patents and Justia.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,688,229 ("Breast pump system and methods")

Critical-date basis: The '229 patent (application 15/180,345, filed 2016‑06‑13) claims priority to July 22, 2014. For § 102 purposes, the operative question is whether a reference was publicly available, patented, or described in a printed publication before that date (or constitutes a § 102(a)(2) application with an earlier effective filing date). Every reference listed on the face of the '229 patent is from before July 2014, so all are § 102(a)(1)-type art (subject to the one‑year grace‑period and AIA nuances).

Scope note / what I searched. I searched the patent record for US 10,688,229 specifically (not similar numbers such as 10,106,829 or 10,688,229‑adjacent IDs). The "References Cited" list below is the examiner/applicant citation list printed against the '229 patent; my principal retrieval sources were the Justia entry for the '229 patent (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10688229) and the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10688229B2](/patent/US10688229B2)/en). I was able to retrieve the U.S. patent-document portion of the citation list in full but not the foreign‑document and non‑patent‑literature tail (discussed in Part 2).

Part 1 — U.S. patent documents cited on the face of US 10,688,229

These are the "References Cited" (backward citations). All are in the breast‑pump / milk‑expression / medical‑suction field, which is why they were cited. Descriptions are at the field/title level (see caveats in Part 6).

Note: items 30–34 (issued in 2015–2016) post‑date the '229 patent's filing date of 2016‑06‑13 only marginally; for § 102 purposes they are relevant only to the extent they published or were filed before the '229's effective date, or as § 103 background. Their inclusion on the face of a 2020 patent is typical examiner practice (citing later‑issued siblings/counterparts).

Part 2 — Foreign patent documents and non‑patent literature

I was not able to retrieve the complete foreign‑document and NPL tail of the '229 citation list within the search budget, so I will not fabricate entries. What I can say with confidence:

• The '229 patent belongs to a family whose PCT publications are WO 2016/014494 A1 and WO 2016/014483 A1 (both "Breast pump system and methods," priority 2014‑07‑22, Exploramed NC7). These are family members of the same applicant and the same priority date — they are NOT prior art to the '229 patent; they appear in the "family"/"Cited By" tables, not as prior art.
• Foreign search‑report art appearing in sibling‑family proceedings (analogous field, useful as leads) includes: CN 104587543 A (Zhang), KR 101519881 B1, CN 206355373 U (Han), WO 2004/028368 A2 (Puronyx), and US 2011/0295162 A1 (Chang & Im). I flag these as closely related field art surfaced in family prosecution, not as items I have confirmed are printed on the '229 face.

I recommend confirming the exact foreign/NPL entries directly against the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" pane before relying on them (see Part 6).

Part 3 — Forward citations ("Cited By") — NOT prior art

For completeness (these are later documents citing the '229, so they cannot be § 102 art to it): CN 112057685 A; WO 2022/034594 A1 (Annabella Tech); US 2022/0362442 A1 (Lansinoh); US 11,660,380; US 12,364,794; US 12,370,292; US 10,722,624; US 2020/0345907 A1; KR 10‑1622768 B1. These confirm the '229 sits at the head of the modern wearable‑breast‑pump art cluster but have no § 102 effect.

Part 4 — § 102 assessment (which references bear on which claims)

Important framing. To establish § 102 anticipation, a single reference must disclose every element of a claim. The '229 patent's inventive core (per the specification provided) is a wearable, in‑bra, self‑powered system in which suction is generated by the elastic "spring‑back" of a resilient conduit previously compressed by one or more compression elements, optionally emulating infant suckling with two coordinated compression elements and a one‑way valve. I could identify the independent claim language as a "wearable, portable, self‑powered breast pump system" (claim 10), with claim 18 reciting the milk‑collection container "configured adjacent the pump mechanism." I do not have the full claim set in the material supplied, so the mapping below is my analytical assessment, not a formal claim chart.

Group A — Portable/hands‑free breast pumps (most likely § 102 art).
US 7,223,255; US 8,057,425; US 7,824,363 (Myers et al.). These are the closest "wearable/portable, hands‑free" references and are the most plausible § 102(a)(1) art against claim 10's "wearable, portable … breast pump system" preamble and against method claims directed to pumping while supported (e.g., in a bra). Anticipation turns on whether they disclose a self‑powered unit and container‑adjacent‑pump geometry (claim 18). Given their era, they likely use a diaphragm/remote vacuum rather than the conduit‑compression mechanism, so they more likely support § 103 than clean § 102.

Group B — Programmable/vacuum‑controlled breast pumps.
US 7,988,661 and US 9,050,404 (Silver et al.); US 6,547,756, US 8,262,606, US 8,282,596, US 9,199,017 (Greter et al.). Relevant to the '229's dependent claims reciting a controller, programmable/feedback control, suction‑level/waveform parameters, and fluid‑isolating cover/diaphragm. Any claim limited to those control‑side features is the most exposed to § 102/§ 103 attack.

Group C — Expression‑profile / stimulation / massage art.
US 8,353,865 and US 8,376,986 (Thilwind/Van Schijndel), US 9,173,587 (Van Schijndel et al.), US 8,684,961 (Gottenbos), US 9,278,167 (Aalders). Relevant to dependent claims reciting milk‑letdown cycles, suction waveforms, and massage/vibration of the breast — these features are squarely old in the Philips‑lineage art.

Group D — Baseline breast pump / milking mechanism art.
Adams (US 4,263,912), Whittlestone (US 4,607,596), and the long list of single‑feature breast‑pump patents (Nordvik, Lugo, Niederberger, Lafond, Kelly, Prentiss, Atkin ×2, Morton, Quackenbush, Sutrina, McKendry, Guidon, Hershkovich, Platt, Rosenfeld, Meyers US 5,542,921). These establish the general state of the art (breast shields, vacuum sources, collection vessels, one‑way valves, battery operation) and are cumulative/§ 103‑support art rather than standalone anticipators of the '229's conduit‑compression claims.

Reference most worth checking first for the '229's signature feature: none of the face‑of‑patent citations is obviously a resilient‑conduit "spring‑back" pump. That mechanism is closer to peristaltic‑pump art. The family record surfaces US 3,366,071 (LKB, peristaltic pump) and US 5,924,852 (Moubayed) as cited in the family's citation tables — these are the references I would most want to read against the '229's independent pumping claims, subject to confirming they are cited against the '229 itself (see caveat below).

Bottom line on § 102: On the record I can verify, no single cited reference appears to disclose all elements of the '229's broadest independent claims. The realistic posture is that Groups A–C supply § 103 combinations (with Group D as secondary art), while the conduit‑compression/spring‑back pumping limitation is the likely point of novelty.

Part 5 — Additional prior art surfaced via related family litigation (flagged)

Because the '229 was asserted in Willow Innovations v. Chiaro/Elvie (2:23‑cv‑00229, E.D. Tex.) — the suit covered in the litigation section above — and because sibling Willow patents in the same family have been challenged at the PTAB, the following references are highly relevant to the '229 family even though they were asserted against sibling patents, not the '229 directly: Chang (in‑bra wearable, flex‑tube/flexible‑conduit pumping), Weber, Guthrie, Khalil, Furrer, Alvarez, Pollen, Weniger, Park, Silver, Rigert, Kasting, Luzbetak, and Yuen. Of these, Chang — described as a "flex‑tube" breast pump actuated by electric motors — is the most conceptually proximate to the '229's compressible‑conduit claims and is the reference I would prioritize.

Flag (per operating rule on not auto‑correcting IDs): I am deliberately labeling these as derived from related proceedings, because the PTAB petitions I reviewed (e.g., IPR2024‑00953, IPR2024‑01296, IPR2025‑00554) target other patents (e.g., US 11,413,380 and US 11,806,454), not 10,688,229. Treat this Part 5 as an investigative lead to verify, not as confirmed '229 prior art.

Part 6 — Explicit limitations (what I could NOT verify)

1. Incomplete citation list. I confirmed the U.S. patent‑document citations but could not retrieve the full foreign‑document + NPL portion of the '229 "References Cited" list. Do not treat Part 1 as exhaustive of the face‑of‑patent references.
2. Claim set. The supplied patent text and my searches did not give me the complete claim set of the '229. Only independent claim 10 ("wearable, portable, self‑powered breast pump system") and claim 18 were directly confirmed. Therefore the § 102 mapping in Part 4 is an analytical assessment relative to claim 10 and its subject matter, not a claim‑by‑claim anticipation chart.
3. Reference descriptions. Bibliographic data (number/date/inventor) is from the retrieved citation list; the one‑line subject descriptions are field‑level characterizations and should be verified against each reference's full text before being relied on.
4. No PTAB/ITC challenge to the '229 specifically was found (consistent with the litigation section), so there is no adversarial prior‑art record to draw on for the '229 itself — the Part 5 material is inferred from sibling‑patent proceedings.

Recommended next steps to finalize: (a) pull the "References Cited" pane for 10,688,229 in USPTO PatentCenter to complete the foreign/NPL list; (b) obtain the full claim set (all independent + dependent claims) via PatentCenter or Google Patents; (c) build element‑by‑element § 102 charts against the Group A–C references and against Chang and the peristaltic‑pump art (US 3,366,071, US 5,924,852).

Sources: https://patents.justia.com/patent/10688229 (referenced‑cited list) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US10688229B2/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140330200 (family citations) · PTAB petitions at ptacts.uspto.gov (IPR2024‑00953, IPR2024‑01296, IPR2025‑00554).

I'll ground this in the actual prior-art references of record for the '229 patent before building any combination theory.

Let me verify the '229's own front-page references and granted claim text directly.

Scope and method — read this first

You asked me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was included in the materials supplied for this task. The only sections I was given are the Patent Summary and the Litigation Summary, neither of which contains a prior-art list.

Rather than invent one, I retrieved the prior art of record for US 10,688,229 and the immediately surrounding family, plus art that has actually been deployed by petitioners against Willow's later family members. Everything below is labeled with its verification status. This is a hypothetical § 103 analysis for analytical purposes — it is not a validity opinion, and I have not conducted an exhaustive search.

One contradiction I must flag per your instructions. The previously generated Patent Summary states the '229's claims could not be retrieved. I found two sources that characterize the '229's claim scope, and they do not obviously match each other:

These are not necessarily inconsistent (the '229 may have multiple independent claims), but I cannot reconcile them from available sources. Patexia also flags application 15/180,345 as "Appealed," which would mean the granted claims were narrowed relative to the published ones. Treat all claim language below as a working approximation, not verified claim text. The authoritative document is the USPTO PatentCenter grant for 15/180,345.

Step 1 — Governing dates and level of ordinary skill

Critical consequence: art published after 2014-07-22 cannot be used. This eliminates several references that petitioners successfully used against Willow's later patents — notably Chang US 2018/0333523 (Chiaro/Elvie's own application) and Guthrie US 2016/0082166, both of which appear in the IPRs against US 11,660,380 / 11,813,381 / 11,413,380. They are not available against the '229. Anyone who imports the Chang-Guthrie-Fang grounds from those IPRs into a '229 analysis is making a date error.

POSITA: a mechanical/biomedical engineer with 2–3 years' experience in fluid-handling or medical-device design, or a lactation-consultant-adjacent product engineer, familiar with peristaltic/occlusion pumping, diaphragm breast pumps, and infant suckling physiology (the Zoppou 1997 J. Hum. Lact. modelling paper cited on the face of US 8,109,901 is representative of the literature a POSITA would consult).

Step 2 — Prior art of record (verified, all pre-2014-07-22)

These six references appear in the patent-citation list of the '229's family documents (I retrieved the list from the sibling publication US 2016/0206794, which shares the '229's specification; I could not open the '229 B2 face page itself, so treat the attribution to the '229 specifically as unverified):

Additional pre-2014 art I verified independently and would add to any ground:

• US 8,109,901 B2 (Bryan et al., Simplisse) — 2012-02-07. Abstract: "A controller is operable to cyclically operate the vacuum pump between a maximum vacuum pressure in the range of about 70 mm Hg to about 150 mm Hg and a latching pressure of about 30 mm Hg." This is the single most damaging reference on the "latch suction maintained throughout a pumping session" limitation.
• US 5,941,847 (1999) — insert with a collapsible membrane isolating vacuum from milk, a duck-bill valve, and a milk passageway; expressly describes applying "a positive pressure" to release milk through the valve. On point for both the one-way valve and the positive-pressure expulsion concept.
• EP 0 733 376 A2 (Cannon Rubber / Avent) — 1996 — diaphragm breast pump, cited as an "X" document in the EP 2 875 835 search report.

Step 3 — Obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — The in-bra wearable system, latch suction maintained throughout (Patexia claim 1)

Combination: Whisper Wear '255 in view of Medela Weber '728, further in view of Bryan '901.

• Whisper Wear '255 discloses the portable, hands-free, bra-worn breast-pump architecture with an on-board pump and collection container.
• Weber '728 supplies the express teaching that the shield "can be fixed in a bra" and that the assembly is "optimally suitable for … 'hands-free' use" — this supplies the motivation for miniaturising the pump and collection volume into a bra-conformable envelope, and explains why (discreet use by a working mother).
• Bryan '901 supplies the controller "cyclically operat[ing] the vacuum pump between a maximum vacuum pressure … and a latching pressure" — which reads directly on "a latch suction is maintained throughout a pumping session."

Motivation: all three are in the same field, address the same problem (discreet, comfortable, hands-free expression), and the combination is the mere substitution of one known vacuum-regulation scheme for another. Under KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), this is "a known technique … to a known device ready for improvement."

Ground 2 — Suction generated by elastic rebound of a compressed resilient conduit; milk expulsed under positive pressure

This is the '229's signature mechanism, and it is where the obviousness case is strongest — largely because the specification concedes it. The '229 expressly states its tube 32 is "silicone tubing, such as used in peristaltic pumps, both platinum-cured and peroxide-cured." Once the disclosure itself invokes peristaltic pumping as the starting point, the "resilient tube as both the displacement chamber and the suction source" concept is admitted art.

Combination: peristaltic-pump tubing art (admitted in the specification; e.g., the occlusion-pump and milking-machine lineage) in view of US 5,941,847 and EP 0 733 376 A2, further in view of Weber '728.

• US 5,941,847 discloses a collapsible membrane that is collapsed by vacuum and whose relaxation/release drives milk through a duck-bill valve under positive pressure — i.e., the same "store energy in a deformed elastomeric element, then release it to do pumping work" principle.
• Weber '728 discloses diaphragm-driven transport of milk to the container "irrespective of the relative position" of the components — supplying the rationale for the '229's claim that collection is "under the positive pumping force … does not rely on gravity."
• EP 0 733 376 A2 supplies the elastomeric-diaphragm breast pump structure.

Motivation: replacing a motor-driven diaphragm or rotary vacuum pump with an elastomeric occlusion tube (a) reduces part count and noise, (b) removes the separate vacuum chamber, and (c) is a predictable substitution of one known displacement mechanism for another. The '229's own stated benefit — "the system 100 then becomes very energy efficient, as it approaches a fully hydraulic system" — is a result that flows from the known incompressibility of milk, not from an unrecognised principle.

Ground 3 — Controller switching between letdown and expression modes based on sensed tube pressure (Dkt. 157 characterization)

Combination: Greter '351 in view of Weber '728 and Khalil '821, further in view of Bryan '901.

• Greter '351 is itself titled "Breastpump with letdown feature" — a microprocessor-controlled transition from a stimulation/letdown regime to an expression regime.
• Bryan '901 adds closed-loop control of the vacuum cycle (max vs. latch) under a controller.
• Weber '728 / Khalil '821 add the compact in-bra form factor.

Motivation: automating the letdown-to-expression transition based on a sensed physiological or pneumatic parameter was an established objective in the field, and a pressure sensor in the milk/vacuum path is the natural (indeed the only straightforward) sensing point available in a closed conduit system. Placing the sensor in the tube rather than the adapter is a predictable design choice.

Ground 4 — Dependent-claim features

Step 4 — Motivation to combine, articulated for the record

A defensible petition would plead the KSR rationales explicitly:

1. Same field of endeavour and same problem. All references are breast pumps addressing bulkiness, noise, discretion, discomfort and energy inefficiency of prior pumps — the identical problems the '229 recites in its own "Background."
2. Predictable results. Substituting an elastomeric occlusion tube for a diaphragm; substituting a latch-pressure controller for a fixed-cycle controller; and miniaturising into a bra envelope are all said to involve "a known technique … to a known device ready for improvement."
3. Design incentives. Weber '728 supplies the express incentive to make the device "small and quiet" and "hands-free."
4. Teaching away is absent. Nothing in the art teaches away from a low-profile, bra-worn, latch-maintained device; Whisper Wear '255 and Khalil '821 affirmatively move in that direction.

Step 5 — Where the obviousness case is weakest (and where a patentee would push back)

I want to be explicit about the limits of this analysis rather than overstate it:

• No IPR was ever filed on the '229. Every Willow IPR I could locate (IPR2024-00953 on US 11,413,380; IPR2025-00554 on US 11,806,454; the W.D. Wash. and PTAB papers on the '380/'381/'893) targets later family members, not the '229. Casting the Chang–Weber–Guthrie–Khalil and Furrer–Alvarez–Pollen–Weniger–Rigert grounds from those proceedings onto the '229 is invalid as a matter of dates (Chang, Guthrie and Pollen all post-date 2014-07-22) — which may well be why no one filed on the '229.
• The '229 went through appeal. Patexia marks application 15/180,345 "Appealed." If the examiner rejected the application and the PTAB reversed, the surviving claims likely incorporate a limitation the Office considered non-obvious. That limitation is exactly what a § 103 analysis needs to focus on, and I could not retrieve it.
• A settlement, not a validity ruling. Willow v. Chiaro (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229) reached a Markman order (Dkt. 157, following the 2024-09-24 hearing) and then settled — stay granted Feb. 3, 2025; dismissal with prejudice Sept. 11, 2025. No claim was held valid or invalid. The settlement therefore establishes nothing about the '229's obviousness.
• Commercial and technical indicia cut the other way to some degree. The Willow Pump and Elvie Pump achieved substantial commercial adoption of the in-bra, latch-maintained architecture. That is a classic objective-indicia argument, though the nexus is contestable and the industry-wide adoption by multiple independent competitors (Willow, Chiaro, Momcozy, Lansinoh, Medela) tends to undercut a "long-felt need solved only by the patentee" narrative.

Explicit uncertainties

1. I did not receive a Prior Art section. If you have a specific reference list you intended me to work from, supply it and I will re-run this analysis against those references specifically.
2. The '229's granted claim text is unverified. The Patexia claim 1 and claim 10 recitations above are a third-party database rendering of application 15/180,345; the Dkt. 157 characterization suggests the operative claims may instead be controller/mode-change claims. These two sources are in tension and I have not resolved it.
3. Attribution of the six-reference IDS list. I verified that list on the sibling publication US 2016/0206794; I could not open the '229 B2 front page to confirm it appears there.
4. US 8,945,046 (Brittner, hands-free breast pump) — issued 2015-02-03, after the '229's priority date. It may still qualify as § 102(e) art if its underlying application predates 2014-07-22, but I did not verify its filing date and have therefore not relied on it.
5. Prentiss '433 and Scheidegger WO '055 — I confirmed dates and titles but not their substantive teachings; I have not relied on them for any specific limitation.