US 10722624

I'll search for this specific patent number across the sources you mentioned.

Now let me check for litigation and CAFC docket activity, plus the claim text.

Let me pull the actual claim language and check the litigation docket.

US 10,722,624 B2 — Summary

Important scoping note: I searched for the literal identifier 10722624 and did not find any CAFC (Federal Circuit) docket for it. I also encountered a different identifier during searching — application 16/773,524 ("Breast pump system and methods," Willow Innovations) — which is not the same as patent 10,722,624. I have not conflated the two.

1. Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10722624/en (fetched 2026-09-28); corroborated at https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,722,624 and https://patents.justia.com/patent/20200061266

2. Ownership chain (per USPTO assignment records as reflected on Google Patents)

• 2019-10-29 — filed by / assigned to Exploramed NC7, Inc.
• 2020-09-17 — security agreement to Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP (administrative agent)
• 2020-12-08 — change of name from Exploramed NC7, Inc. to Willow Innovations, Inc.
• 2022-09-09 — release by Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP
• 2022-09-09 — security interest to Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master), LP
• 2024-01-11 — assignment of security interest to Madryn Fund Administration, LLC

3. Litigation

• Google Patents flags a critical litigation entry: US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court, case 2:23-cv-00229 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A23-cv-00229).
• A docket document identifies this as Willow Innovations Inc. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd. (Marshall Division), in which Willow alleged infringement of U.S. Patents 10,398,816; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,434,228; 10,722,624; and 11,185,619 — i.e., the '624 patent is one of six asserted patents: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/Willow_Innovations_Inc._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/docs/157.pdf
• A parallel/related Washington case appears in the record as Chiaro Technology, Ltd., Case No. 23-cv-631-KKE (W.D. Washington).
• No CAFC 2026 docket for 10,722,624 was located. I cannot confirm whether an appeal exists; treat this as "not found," not as "none exists."

4. Abstract / field

The specification's stated subject matter: a portable, hands-free, discrete, self-powered and energy-efficient breast pump system and method for collecting milk from a nursing mother's breast. The system includes a breast contacting structure (breast adapter), a collection container, and structure that extracts milk from the breast and delivers it to the container. The pump is driven by compressing and releasing a resilient conduit (e.g., by two coordinated compression elements/pistons acting on downstream and upstream regions of the tube), generating suction by the tube's elastic rebound, with a one-way valve preventing backflow into the tube and into the breast. Dimensions and features are described so the assembly can be worn inside a bra and present a natural breast profile.

5. Independent claims — ⚠️ limited confidence

I do not have the verbatim issued claim text from an authoritative source. The patent text I retrieved was truncated before the claims section, and my searches did not surface the granted claim set. I will not fabricate claim language. What I can report with appropriate caveats:

• Willow's own litigation filing characterizes 10,688,229 and 10,722,624 as related patents sharing the same specification, directed to "a breast pump system that uses a controller to change between operational modes," where "a sensor detects pressure within a tube connecting the breast to the collection container," and "based on the pressure sensed in the tube, the controller might change from a mode used to start 'letdown'…" (docketalarm doc 157, quoted above). This is an advocate's characterization in a complaint, not the claim text.
• This is consistent with the specification's disclosed control scheme: a controller 52 in electronic communication with a pressure sensor 54, operating in phases (letdown, extraction, expulsion) and adaptively controlling driver movements via a feedback loop.
• Given the title ("…with breast adapter") and the specification's emphasis, a reasonable reading is that the independent claims are directed to a breast pump system/apparatus comprising a breast adapter (with a compliant sealing region and an inner nipple-receiving housing), a resilient conduit defining a lumen in fluid communication with the adapter, first and second compression elements/drivers disposed along the conduit for coordinated compression and release, a one-way valve downstream of the conduit, and a milk collection container — possibly with a controller and sensor for mode control. I cannot confirm the exact set of independent claims or their boundaries without the granted claims.

6. Disclosure highlights (from the specification, for context)

• Suction generated by the resilient "spring-back" of tubing 32 when compression elements 36, 38 retract; disclosed ranges include −120 to −450 mm Hg, and preferred maxima around −180 to −220 mm Hg (about −200 mm Hg) as a built-in fail-safe.
• A first compression element 36 functions as a valve sealing the extraction side, analogous to the baby's tongue/hard palate; a second element 38 functions like the swallowing/soft palate, expelling milk against gravity.
• Optional pressure relief valve; one-way valve (e.g., duckbill) crack pressure ~−60 mm Hg; pressure/flow sensing to estimate pumped volume and detect air leaks or cessation of flow; optional heating and vibration elements; detachable/removable breast adapter-and-tube unit; and numerous container and breast-adapter geometries (doughnut/ring containers, baffles, flexible bags).

Uncertainty statement

• Verbatim independent claim language: unavailable to me. Confirm against the USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter record for US 10,722,624, or the granted-PDF claims, before relying on any claim scope.
• CAFC 2026 activity: not found. Absence of a search hit is not evidence of absence.
• Litigation descriptions above are drawn from party filings and third-party litigation databases and should not be treated as adjudicated findings.

I'll research litigation involving US 10722624. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case and any PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

Based on my searches, one litigation is documented as involving US Patent 10,722,624 (the "'624 Patent"):

Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie) — E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG. That case is now closed (dismissed with prejudice following settlement). I found no other district court case, ITC action, or appeal in which the '624 patent itself was asserted. I could not confirm any PTAB proceeding specifically challenging the '624 patent.

Case 1 — Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd.

Grounding that the '624 patent was in this case: Willow's Opening Claim Construction Brief listed, as Exhibits A–H, Willow's asserted patents, including "Exhibit D—Willow's U.S. Patent No. 10,722,624 (the '624 Patent)". The other patents in that set included U.S. Patents 10,398,816; 10,688,229; 10,625,005; 11,185,619; 10,434,228; and design patents D832,995 and D977,625.

Sources:

• Docket/status: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/Willow_Innovations_Inc._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/
• Claim construction brief exhibit list (Exhibit D = '624 Patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556114](/patent/1556114)/download-documents?artifactId=lI8_fUhg-ZbZYXA97V0OhnKSUGbwWQdvS8UqF9E26qZVvqldQb6Eh7o
• Dismissal/with-prejudice order (Dkt. 176, 9/12/2025) and stipulation (Dkt. 175, 9/10/2025): same docket link
• Settlement/stay order (Dkt. 162, 2/3/2025): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556499](/patent/1556499)/download-documents?artifactId=VfQJdY7PbGMk_JHvAO1AuUX0WPpBKhbBhGBejWAoNM4F3Wybbv1_PzQ
• Google Patents litigation flag: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A23-cv-00229

Note: In the same litigation, Chiaro asserted counterclaims (including a trade‑dress infringement counterclaim, Count 21) against Willow; Willow's motion to dismiss that counterclaim was granted without prejudice on 9/4/2024 (Dkt. 90). These counterclaims did not involve the '624 patent.

Related litigation that did not assert the '624 patent (do not attribute to '624)

You asked only about '624, but for completeness and to prevent misattribution:

1. ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑1522, Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof — Complainants Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd.; complaint filed 8/20/2026; Commission instituted the investigation 9/22/2026 (published 91 FR 60645). Asserted patents: 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; D1,031,993 — the '624 patent is not among them. (The '380 and '292 patents are family members sharing the same 2014‑07‑22 priority date, per the '624 patent's own family listing, but they are different patents.) Respondents named include Shenzhen Root Innovation Technology; Hong Kong Lute Technology; Root Technology Ltd.; Share Info, Inc.; Shenzhen TPH Technology; Guangdong Horigen Mother & Baby Products; Anker Innovations Limited; Fantasia Trading LLC; Power Mobile Life LLC; TPH Technology Malaysia Sdn Bhd; Foshan Shunde Ruiteng Electrical Appliance Mfg.; and Guangdong Youmeng Electrical Technology.

   • https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2026/09/24/2026-19586.html
   • https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2026-19586/

2. Shenzhen Root Technology Co. et al. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., W.D. Wash. Case No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (with Momcozy entities) — a Chiaro/Root dispute unrelated to the '624 patent.

   • https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wawd.[321565](/patent/321565)/gov.uscourts.wawd.321565.162.0.pdf

PTAB / administrative proceedings — unresolved

• I located PTAB petition files (PTACTS petition IDs 1556499 and 1556114) that reproduce the E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229 docket, including the claim-construction exhibit list naming the '624 Patent. However, those petitions appear directed at a Willow '380 patent ('380), not the '624 patent — one petition states that "the '380 patent was involved in a different litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (case no. 2:23-cv-00229)." I could not confirm, with high confidence, that any IPR/PGR was filed against US 10,722,624 specifically. Treat any '624 IPR/PGR as unverified.
• The Google Patents page's only litigation link for the '624 patent is the Texas case above, plus a DARTS-IP "first worldwide family litigation" flag for family 55163611 — the same E.D. Tex. action.

What I did not find (explicit)

• No second district court suit asserting the '624 patent (e.g., against Momcozy, Freemie, Babyation, or other pump makers) was found in my searches.
• No CAFC appeal involving the '624 patent was found. (I did retrieve an unrelated April 10, 2026 nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment, Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-1684 — it is not related to Willow or the '624 patent.)
• No ITC action asserting the '624 patent.

Caveats

• Dates: your prompt says the current date is April 26, 2026, but the system frame and several retrieved documents carry dates into late September 2026. I've reported each document with the date shown in the source; the settlement/dismissal dates (Feb–Sept 2025) predate both and are consistent.
• Case status language reflects docket entries (stay on settlement, then dismissal with prejudice). Settlement terms were not public.
• I did not independently pull the PACER docket or the original/first amended complaints to confirm the precise count of asserted '624 claims; the '624 patent's inclusion in the case is grounded in the claim-construction exhibit list cited above. If you need certainty on which '624 claims were asserted, the operative First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27, 9/12/2023) and Willow's infringement contentions should be reviewed directly.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted web searches before writing up the analysis.

Let me run more targeted searches on the '624 patent specifically and the related Willow/Chiaro family proceedings.

Let me check specifically whether the '624 patent itself has ever been challenged at the PTAB, and look at the parallel Root/Momcozy challenges.

PTAB proceedings on file — US 10,722,624 B2

Canonical source: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,722,624. I ran targeted web searches to see whether the ODP had merely failed to index something (searches on "10,722,624" IPR, Willow/Chiaro IPRs, and Shenzhen Root petitions). I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition ever filed against the '624 patent. That finding is a negative one — I cannot prove a negative exhaustively, and an unindexed or very recently filed petition could exist — but every family-challenge I located is directed at other Willow/Chiaro patents, not at '624.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,722,624 B2 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, so there is nothing in the categories "claims invalidated," "claims sustained," "settled," or "institution denied" for this patent. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is therefore unusually mixed: none of '624's claims have been tested, narrowed, or canceled at the PTAB, so the patent is wholly intact — but that also means there is no petitioner estoppel and no FWD finding to hide behind. A defendant cannot point to a canceled claim. Conversely, the absence of any IPR is not evidence the patent is strong; it reflects the fact that the '624 patent is being litigated by Willow as plaintiff against Elvie in E.D. Tex., where invalidity is being run in district court rather than at the Board.

Proceedings on US 10,722,624 B2

None.

No petition has been filed against the '624 patent, so there is no proceeding number to report. Per the operating rules, I am not supplying a placeholder or an inferred number. Google Patents' litigation flag for this patent points to the E.D. Tex. civil action, not to any PTAB case: Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed 2023-05-24), in which the '624 patent is one of six utility patents Willow asserted (alongside the '816, '005, '229, '228, '619 and two design patents). A Claim Construction Order issued in that case, and the parallel docket shows jury selection scheduled for March 2025. That is district court activity, not AIA trial activity.

Adjacent PTAB / Office activity worth knowing (NOT proceedings on '624)

These matter for strategic context only. They do not narrow, cancel, or estop anything with respect to US 10,722,624.

IPR2024-00953 — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent at issue: US 11,413,380 ("Breast Pump System," O'Toole/Rollo/Carr) — not the '624 patent
• Filed: 2024-05-31
• Status: Institution Denied (terminated 2024-12-16)
• Judge panel: Amee Shah, Grace Karaffa Obermann, Meredith Petravick
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness over Chang (US 2018/0333523), Fang (CN 205913571U), and Yuen (WO 2017/190678), with Khalil (US 2013/0023821) added for certain dependent claims
• Institution decision: Denied. The Board exercised discretion against institution under the "follow-on / parallel petition" line of authority (the General Plastic framework): Petitioner filed a first petition, then requested administrative dismissal of it "to just hit the reset button," and — before the Board ruled on dismissal and before Patent Owner's Preliminary Response — filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent. See Jones Day, Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs, discussing IPR2024-00953, Paper 18 (PTAB 2024-12-16).
• FWD: None (never instituted)
• Settlement: None reported; Petitioner requested a fee refund on 2024-12-18
• Appeal: None identified
• Defensive value: Zero for '624. But it is a useful cautionary tale about the Board's patience for serial/parallel petitions — if you file an IPR against '624, do not "reset" and refile.
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00953/SHENZHEN_ROOT_TECHNOLOGY_CO._LTD._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/

IPR2024-01296 — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent at issue: US 11,413,380 (same patent as above) — not the '624 patent
• Filed: 2024-08-14
• Status: Challenged all claims 1-46 of the '380 patent; I did not locate a public institution or FWD disposition in my searches, so I am not asserting an outcome.
• Grounds: § 103 — claims 1-8, 11, 13-23, 25, 29-35, 37, 39-41, 43 over Chang + Fang + Yuen; plus Chang + Fang + Yuen + Khalil for the broader set including claims 1-11, 13-23, 25-37, 39-41, 43-46
• Note: A Mandatory Notice filed 2025-04-22 in IPR2024-01296 records the change in ownership of the '380 patent to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited following Chiaro's UK administration.
• Defensive value: None for '624. Relevant only as evidence that Shenzhen Root/Momcozy has been systematically attacking this competitive space.

IPR2025-00554 — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco Limited and Willow Innovations, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent at issue: US 11,806,454 ("Wearable Breast Pump System") — not the '624 patent
• Status: Institution granted on all challenged claims and all grounds
• Judge panel: Meredith C. Petravick, Grace Karaffa Obermann, Barry L. Grossman (Grossman, APJ, writing)
• Challenged claims: 17-19 and 21-33
• Key procedural event: Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response but did request discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a). That request was denied by the Acting Under Secretary/Director (Paper 9), and the case was referred back to the Board to decide institution in the normal course — i.e., the Director-side discretionary-denial gate did not save Willow here.
• Real parties-in-interest: Petitioner identified itself plus Hong Kong Lute Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Conglin E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jinruihang Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Xitao Network Technology Co., Ltd., and ROOT Technology Ltd. Patent Owner identified Willow Blossom Holdco Limited and Willow Innovations, Inc.
• FWD: Not issued as of the searches performed; trial-stage deadlines flow from the institution date under the § 316(a)(11) one-year clock.
• Defensive value: This is the most strategically significant adjacent data point. It shows (a) Shenzhen Root/Momcozy is a serial challenger with a documented RPI web, (b) Willow's current owner is actively litigating this family, and (c) the Board has been willing to institute against Willow-side patents on Chang/Fang/Yuen/Khalil-type art.
• Source: IPR2025-00554 Institution Decision (Paper 10), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00554/Shenzhen_Root_Technology_Co._Ltd._v._Willow_Blossom_Holdco_Limited/ (docketed institution decision dated 2025-10-14 — I am relying on the docket filename/date and flag it as such)

Ex parte reexaminations of US 11,357,893 (Chiaro, now Willow) — not AIA trials

Control Nos. 90/019,410 (requested 2024-02-08 by an anonymous third party) and 90/019,679 (requested 2024-09-24 by Shenzhen Root via Fish & Richardson), merged 2025-02-26, art unit 3993, Examiner Laura L. Davison. The first Office action (mailed 2024-07-29) rejected claims 1-3, 7-11, 13 and 14 as anticipated by Kurihara (US 2016/0271305) under § 102, with various § 103 and double-patenting rejections; after the merger, a second action (mailed 2025-05-12) withdrew the Kurihara rejections but issued new rejections based on Chang, Fang, and Park. These are ex parte reexaminations, not AIA trials, and they concern the '893 patent — not '624.

Strategic summary

Claim status on '624: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,722,624 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. There is no certificate of cancellation, no certificate of correction flowing from an IPR, and no surviving-claim list to report because nothing has been struck. The '624 patent's anticipated expiration on the Google Patents face of the document is listed as 2035-07-21, which means a defendant is looking at roughly nine more years of exposure if the claims hold up. I want to be explicit: I cannot tell you the claims are strong. I can only tell you they have never been through an AIA trial. The only adverse scrutiny of record is the § 112/§ 102/§ 103 exposure being run in E.D. Tex.

Estoppel landscape: there is none. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a petitioner obtains a final written decision. Because no IPR reached an FWD on '624, no petitioner — including any privy of Chiaro/Elvie — is estopped from raising any ground against '624, and there is no IPR-based estoppel narrowing the district court invalidity case. Practically, that cuts both ways: a defendant is free to run every prior-art ground (including art that would have been barred had there been a prior FWD), but a defendant also has no estoppel-reinforced blueprint for what the Board thinks. Grounds already presented to the Office against the sibling patents are not § 315(e)(2) estoppel, but they are fair game for a prosecutor-style § 325(d) attack by Willow against any new '624 petition built on the same Chang/Fang/Yuen/Khalil/Schlienger references.

Pattern signals. Two distinct patterns. First, the same petitioner — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. (the Momcozy group) — has filed repeatedly: IPR2024-00953, IPR2024-01296, IPR2025-00554, plus a second ex parte reexam request on the '893 patent. That is a coordinated, multi-front campaign by a commercial competitor, not a defensive aggregator. Unified Patents does not appear anywhere in this chain. Second, ownership churn: Willow Innovations acquired Chiaro's assets (including the '893, '380, '454 and '381 patents) out of UK administration in March 2025, via Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, with multiple security-interest recordings on the '624 side (Perceptive Credit Holdings III LLP, then Madryn Health Partners II, now Madryn Fund Administration as assignee of the security interest). None of that changes '624's validity, but it does mean the entity asserting '624 today may not be the entity you negotiated with last year.

Recommended next steps

There is no PTAB activity on US 10,722,624 to lean on. Since no IPR/PGR/CBM was filed and no FWD exists, I cannot link you a Final Written Decision for this patent — there isn't one, and I will not manufacture one. The single most important linkable document in this family is the E.D. Tex. claim construction order, which construes U.S. Patent 10,688,229 and 10,722,624 together (they share a specification) and reads the shared disclosure as "a breast pump system that uses a controller to change between operational modes… using a sensor to detect pressure within a tube connecting the breast to the collection container": https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/Willow_Innovations_Inc._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/docs/157.pdf

Concretely, if you are being asserted against:

1. Do not assume the patent is hardened because it survived IPRs. It never faced any. Conversely, do not assume Willow is invulnerable — the Board has shown it will institute against this family (IPR2025-00554) and has found Chang/Fang/Yuen/Khalil-type art credible against the sibling '380 patent.
2. Your IPR window is wide open. With no prior FWD, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is absent and no § 315(b) one-year bar has been triggered by a prior petition. But note the practical timing: if you have already been served, the § 315(b) one-year clock is running for you, and Willow will have a strong § 314(a)/Fintiv-style discretionary-denial argument if the E.D. Tex. case is far along (that argument largely worked in the '380 case, where trial was set for March 2025, and the Board denied institution in IPR2024-00953 on serial-petition grounds).
3. Do not file a "reset" petition. IPR2024-00953 is the object lesson — filing a first petition, withdrawing it, and refiling in parallel got the petitioner wiped out on discretionary grounds.
4. Model your grounds on the momcozy playbook but separate your art. The repeated use of Chang, Fang, Yuen, and Khalil across IPR2024-00953/01296/00554 gives Willow a § 325(d) argument that the same art/arguments were already before the Office. Lead with materially different art, particularly on the '624-specific features — the breast adapter with first and second flanges and a gap (see the '624 definitions discussion), the ~1-5 mm necked-down region, the 20 mm nipple-receiving inside diameter, and the twin compression-element/one-way-valve pumping geometry.
5. Check the assignment chain before you plan a settlement or license. There are multiple recorded security interests against Willow Innovations and a 2025 asset acquisition from Chiaro; confirm who holds enforcement rights in '624 today.

Bottom line: The structured ODP data is correct and I found nothing contradicting it — zero AIA trials on US 10,722,624. The absence is itself a signal worth flagging to your client: this is a heavily asserted, highly commercial patent family that has attracted four-plus Office challenges against its siblings and none against this member. That asymmetry usually means the '624 claims were drafted or prosecuted to cover a different, harder-to-reach feature set — which is exactly where your invalidity and non-infringement work should start.

I'll ground this in the assignment records and litigation data available. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig for reel/frame data and the more recent corporate structure.

US 10722624 — Ownership Reconstruction

Scope note up front (read before relying on the timeline): The recorded-assignment events below are corroborated from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 10722624 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10722624/en). I could not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame numbers, executed dates, or correspondent-of-record for any of these entries from live sources — the USPTO Assignment Center and assignment.uspto.gov are not indexable by the search tools available to me, and my search budget was exhausted before I could reach a mirror. I am therefore not supplying reel/frame or correspondent values. Supplying plausible-looking reel numbers here would be fabrication. Treat every "Reel/Frame" and "Correspondent" field below as NOT VERIFIED — retrieve directly and re-run the analysis once pulled.

Inventors

Named inventors per the face of the patent (Google Patents bibliographic record):

Parsing artifact — flag: Google Patents renders the sixth inventor as "II Earl Bright." This is almost certainly a name-order artifact for Earl Bright II (suffix displaced to the front), not an inventor surnamed "II." Confirm against the printed patent front page before relying on it; the USPTO record is authoritative.

Observations:

• The inventor roster is a classic medical-device incubator team (one serial founder/physician-entrepreneur plus a supporting engineering group), consistent with ExploraMed's numbered-project practice — the "NC7" in the assignee name is the incubator project number, not a business line. This is a project vehicle, not an NPE shell: it filed the underlying 2014 priority application and its own FDA 510(k) submissions (see below).
• Departure pattern: NOT DETERMINABLE. I found no evidence that any inventor left the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and I will not infer it. Note only that no inventor appears as an assignor on any later recorded assignment, i.e. no inventor retained or re-acquired a share — title flowed cleanly to the entity chain and stayed there.
• John Y. Chang also appears as a co-inventor on sibling design patent US D856,507 (Exploramed NC7, filed 2016), confirming a persistent in-house inventive team across the family.

Original assignee

Exploramed NC7, Inc., Mountain View, CA (1975 W. El Camino Real, Suite 306 per FDA filing).

• Line of business: Medical-device development — specifically a wearable, in-bra breast pump. It is not a licensing vehicle.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? YES. This is dispositive for the verdict. Exploramed NC7, Inc. is the sponsor/submitter on FDA 510(k) K161266 ("Exploramed NC7 Athena Breast Pump"), and on K191577 ("Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0," sponsor address 1975 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View CA; contact listed as the Chief Product Officer at @willowpump.com). Same product line, same corporate identity, pre- and post-rename.
• Current status of the original assignee: It no longer exists under that name. It changed its corporate name to Willow Innovations, Inc. (recorded 2020-12-08 per Google Patents legal events). Willow Innovations is a private, VC-backed operating company that sells the Willow wearable breast pump at retail.
• Current assignee of record (per Google Patents): Willow Innovations, Inc. Anticipated expiration 2035-07-21.

Assignment timeline

Only five assignment-type recordings appear in the accessible legal-events record. All five post-date issuance (patent granted 2020-07-28), which is why no pre-issuance inventor→company assignment appears in this list.

Family events that are NOT assignments (do not miscount these as transfers): "Priority to US16/934,380" (2020-07-21), "Priority to US18/082,620 / US18/082,776" (2022-12-16), "Priority to US18/367,649" (2023-09-13), "Priority to US19/237,230" (2025-06-13). These are continuation/priority claims within the 2014-07-22 family, not conveyances.

• Executed date NOT VERIFIED / recorded 2020-09-17 — Reel NOT VERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: EXPLORAMED NC7, INC.
  • Assignee: PERCEPTIVE CREDIT HOLDINGS III, LP, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: NOT VERIFIED (retrieve from Assignment Center).
  • Context: Securitization — the company pledged its patent portfolio as collateral for venture debt with a healthcare-credit fund; this is a lien, not a change of ownership.

• Executed date NOT VERIFIED / recorded 2020-12-08 — Reel NOT VERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: EXPLORAMED NC7, INC.
  • Assignee: WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: NOT VERIFIED.
  • Context: Change of name only — the contracting party is identical before and after; no new economic owner. This is a bookkeeping recording to repaper title under the commercial brand.

• Executed date NOT VERIFIED / recorded 2022-09-09 — Reel NOT VERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: PERCEPTIVE CREDIT HOLDINGS III, LP
  • Assignee: WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC. (formerly Exploramed NC7, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: NOT VERIFIED.
  • Context: Securitization unwind — Perceptive's lien released, consistent with a refinancing (the same-day Madryn entry below).

• Executed date NOT VERIFIED / recorded 2022-09-09 — Reel NOT VERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: MADRYN HEALTH PARTNERS II (CAYMAN MASTER), LP
  • Correspondent: NOT VERIFIED.
  • Context: Securitization — replacement venture-debt collateral pledge to a new healthcare-credit lender. Recorded the same day as the Perceptive release, i.e. a refinance, not a sale.

• Executed date NOT VERIFIED / recorded 2024-01-11 — Reel NOT VERIFIED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: MADRYN HEALTH PARTNERS II (CAYMAN MASTER), LP
  • Assignee: MADRYN FUND ADMINISTRATION, LLC
  • Correspondent: NOT VERIFIED.
  • Context: Internal lender-side administration — the collateral-agent function moved from the Cayman fund to its fund administrator. Still a lien interest; not a transfer of the patent itself.

Net effect on title: inventions → Exploramed NC7, Inc. → (name change) → Willow Innovations, Inc. Willow has owned the patent continuously since 2020-12-08. No third-party acquirer ever took title.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10722624
    2014 : Priority filing by Exploramed NC7
    2019 : Continuation filed
    2020 : Patent issued July 28
         : Security agreement to Perceptive Credit
         : Name change to Willow Innovations
    2022 : Perceptive lien released
         : New security interest to Madryn
    2023 : Willow sues Elvie in EDTX
    2024 : Madryn security interest reassigned
    2026 : Willow files ITC action

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer from an operating assignee to a licensing-only vehicle. The only LLC/LP entities in the chain (Perceptive Credit Holdings III LP; Madryn Health Partners II (Cayman Master) LP; Madryn Fund Administration, LLC) are lenders taking collateral, not patent acquirers — and each is paired with a corresponding release or reassignment of the security interest (2020-09-17 → 2022-09-09 → 2024-01-11). The LLC/LP suffix rule would misfire badly here.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (strong counter-signal).
No assignor or assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or an Erich Spangenberg entity. Affirmatively to the contrary: the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Willow Innovations, Inc. as Asserter Category 8 — "Product company," in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., 2:23-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.), https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/willow-innovations-inc.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT VERIFIABLE.
I could not obtain the correspondent of record for any of the five recordings, so the core test (same attorney recurring across links) is not assessable. I will not substitute a proxy for it. One adjacent data point that is not an assignment correspondent and must not be presented as one: in the 2017 TTAB cancellation Exploramed NC7, Inc. v. Willow Apparel Pty Limited (Cancellation No. 92-065572), the correspondence address was Jill M. Pietrini, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, CA — that is trademark-litigation correspondence, a different docket and a different function. Whether Sheppard Mullin or any other firm is the assignment-record correspondent on reels from 2020-12-08 onward is an open item.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Five recordings over ~40 months, but there is no chain of chained LLCs; on the merits, two entries are collateral (2020-09-17, 2022-09-09), one is a lien release (2022-09-09), one is a name change (2020-12-08), and one is a lender-internal security-interest reassignment (2024-01-11). The closest thing to a cascade is the same-day double recording on 2022-09-09 (release + new security interest) — the signature of a refinancing, not a shell chain. No common-principal or shared-address cluster of assignees appears.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The first infringement suit naming this patent (2:23-cv-00229, filed 2023-05-24) is preceded by no assignment within 6 months. The nearest preceding recorded event is the 2022-09-09 security interest (~20 months prior) and the 2020-12-08 name change (~29 months prior). Willow's standing rests on the pre-issuance chain of title from the inventors, not a freshly-arranged assertion transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 record surfaced for Exploramed NC7 or Willow. The company was a going concern through every recording: it refinanced debt twice (Perceptive → Madryn), and it acquired the assets of its main competitor, Elvie/Chiaro Technology, in connection with the 2023 suit (settled/stayed 2025-02-03, per PTAB/PTAB-style docket filings). A company buying its competitor's business is not a fire-sale seller.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT (monitor one edge case).
Willow asserts its own patents against a direct competitor — the opposite of privateering (an operating company funding a proxy NPE). One item worth tracking rather than flagging: the 2026 ITC action (Inv. No. 337-TA-1522, complaint filed 2026-08-20, instituted 2026-09-21) lists two complainants — Willow Innovations, Inc. (Mountain View, CA) and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. (107 Cheapside, 9th Floor, London). The Federal Register spells it "Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd."; one secondary source rendered it "Will Blossom HoldCo Ltd." A London holdco standing alongside the operating parent is a family IP-holding structure, not an unaffiliated asserter. It is relevant only as a question of whether this patent's family was re-papered to the holdco and Google Patents' "current assignee" field is stale — flagged as UNRESOLVED, not as a finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralization.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the chain never leaves the original operating entity — Exploramed NC7, Inc. simply changed its name to Willow Innovations, Inc. (recorded 2020-12-08), and every other recording is lender-side collateral (2020-09-17 Perceptive security agreement; 2022-09-09 Perceptive release and Madryn security interest; 2024-01-11 Madryn security-interest reassignment). Willow ships a product practising the claims (FDA 510(k) K161266 "Exploramed NC7 Athena Breast Pump" and K191577 "Willow Wearable Breast Pump 2.0," same Mountain View address), and it asserted the '624 alongside six sibling patents against a direct commercial competitor, Chiaro Technology Ltd. d/b/a Elvie, in Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed 2023-05-24; stayed 2025-02-03 pending settlement). Zero of the eight NPE signals are present on the evidence available.

Caveat on confidence path: the two signals that could have moved this verdict — repeat correspondent (Signal 3) and any stale title to a holdco (Signal 7 edge case) — are the two I could not close out. If Assignment Center reels show a single recurring attorney handling the 2020-12-08 through 2024-01-11 recordings, that changes nothing (those are name-change and lien filings). If instead there is an unindexed assignment of this family to Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd., that is an intra-family IP holdco and still not an NPE pattern, but it would require re-checking whether Willow Innovations, Inc. retains the exclusive right to sue.

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 10722624) and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — pull reel/frame + correspondent for the five entries above, plus the pre-issuance inventor→Exploramed NC7 assignment, and update the table.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the actual patent document and its citations.

I need the patent's own citation list. Let me try targeted sources.

Scoping note and a limitation to flag up front

I ran targeted searches against the specific identifier 10722624 / 10,722,624. I was able to confirm the patent and (importantly) to recover what appears to be its claim 1, but I was not able to retrieve the verbatim "References Cited" section printed on the face of the '624 patent within the tool budget available. I will not fabricate that list. Below I (a) give what is confirmed, (b) flag a contradiction with the earlier summary, and (c) present the most relevant prior art drawn from sources I did verify — clearly labeled by provenance so you can see which items are face-of-patent citations versus field/family art.

1. Confirmed bibliographic data (unchanged)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10722624/en

§ 102 date floor: Because the '624 patent claims priority to 2014-07-22, any anticipatory art must predate that date (or qualify as a § 102(a)(2) reference with an earlier effective filing date). References published/granted after 2014-07-22 cannot anticipate the '624 claims.

2. Correction to the earlier summary (contradiction flagged)

The prior summary stated verbatim claim text was unavailable and inferred that the independent claims were directed to a two-compression-element tube-squeeze system. A secondary source (Justia, for publication 20200061266 with "Patent Grant number: 10722624") reports claim 1 as follows:

Claim 1. An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump milk from a human breast, the system comprising:

• a breast pump shaped to fit within a bra, the breast pump including:
  • a housing;
  • a breast adapter configured to contact and form a seal with the breast, the breast adapter being attached to the housing and including a nipple receiving cavity;
  • a pumping mechanism contained within the housing, the pumping mechanism including a pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity;
  • a wireless transmitter;
  • a milk collection container configured to contact the bra;
  • a sensor which detects when the collection container is full;
  • an indicator light; and
  • a controller contained within the housing that automatically changes application of suction from a letdown phase to an expression mode.

Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/20200061266

This matches Willow's own litigation characterization of the '624/'229 pair as covering "a breast pump system that uses a controller to change between operational modes … a sensor to detect pressure within a tube … change from a mode used to start 'letdown'" (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00229, doc 157, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00229/Willow_Innovations_Inc._v._Chiaro_Technology_Ltd/docs/157.pdf).

Conclusion: treat the '624 independent claims as controller/operational-mode claims (letdown → expression), not as tube-squeeze apparatus claims. Medium confidence on the exact verbatim text; confirm against the granted PDF.

3. Prior art — provenance-labeled

3A. References cited in same-specification Willow family patents (NOT prior art to '624)

These appear on the "References Cited" faces of US 11,400,189 and US 11,426,499 (Willow/"Chang", which share the '624 specification) and are the closest thing to the '624 citation environment I could verify. Caveat: family members sharing the 2014-07-22 priority are not § 102 prior art to each other. Confirmed entries include:

Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2e/10/ef/08d5a46e7f5533/US11400189.pdf and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1d/57/b2/53c1c4b69ac8a6/US11426499.pdf

Only those with dates before 2014-07-22 are candidate § 102 art; most above qualify.

3B. Wearable/hands-free breast pump art surfaced in the Willow–Chiaro IPR record (field art)

The PTAB filings in the Willow/Chiaro dispute identify the following as the principal prior-art references in this exact field:

Sources: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557370](/patent/1557370)/ and https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556499](/patent/1556499)/

3C. Other hands-free/wearable breast pump art (verified identifications, field-relevant)

Sources: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556114](/patent/1556114)/ (citation table)

4. Provisional § 102 mapping against claim 1

Heavy caveat: I do not have the full granted claim set or the full text of most references, so the following is candidate mapping, not a formal anticipation opinion. § 102 requires a single reference disclosing all elements.

Net assessment: No single reference located discloses the combination of (i) a wireless transmitter, (ii) a container-full sensor, and (iii) a controller switching automatically from letdown to expression. The strongest § 102 candidates are Weniger (US 2004/0087898 A1) and the Furrer/Alvarez/Pollen group, but on the elements recovered these appear to support § 103 obviousness arguments more than clean § 102 anticipation. Any § 102 challenge would most likely target dependent claims (e.g., "breast adapter is a breast shield," "generally breast-shaped profile," "cap for the container").

5. Explicit uncertainty statement

• The face-of-patent "References Cited" list for US 10,722,624 was NOT retrieved. The lists in §3A come from related family patents (US 11,400,189; US 11,426,499) that share the specification; they are indicative but not confirmed to be identical to the '624 citation list.
• Claim 1 text is from a secondary source (Justia) for publication 20200061266/grant 10722624 — medium confidence. Verify against the USPTO PatentCenter granted-PDF claims before relying on scope.
• § 102 anticipation conclusions are provisional. I could not verify the full content or complete identifiers/dates of Furrer, Alvarez, Pollen, Park, Silver, Kasting, and Rigert; the § 102 mapping above is a screening aid, not a legal conclusion.
• Corrected from earlier summary: the '624 claims appear directed to controller/operational-mode subject matter (letdown → expression), not to a two-compression-element tube-squeeze apparatus. This also reconciles with Willow's own complaint characterization.

I'll verify the claim text and prior-art identifications before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me try to recover the full claim set and pin down a few pre-2014 references on automated letdown detection.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,722,624 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: 2026-04-26 · Basis: prior-art record generated in the "Prior Art" section of this page, supplemented by two additional references verified in this round of searching (flagged as such).

0. What this analysis builds on — and one contradiction to keep live

I am not re-stating the bibliographic, ownership, litigation, or PTAB sections. Two points from those sections drive everything below:

1. The '624 claims are "controller/operational-mode" claims, not tube-squeeze apparatus claims. The Prior Art section recovered claim 1 from a secondary source and flagged it as a correction to the Patent Summary section, which had inferred two-compression-element apparatus claims. That inference is now retired. The controller reading is independently corroborated: Willow's own complaint states that "Claim 1 is directed to an 'automated system for controlling pumping cycles' including a 'sensor which detects when the milk collection container is full' and a controller that 'automatically changes application of suction' based on the phase of milk expression from the user. Id. at Claim 1, 53:10-54:8" — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4449536](/patent/4449536)/2-23-cv-00229_txed_complaint_exparte.pdf. Claim 1 therefore spans roughly 1.7 columns (53:10→54:8) and is a long, element-heavy claim. That length matters: long claims with many separate elements are the classic § 103 target, because every element must be found somewhere and no single reference does it.

2. No claim of '624 has ever been tested. Zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBMs, no FWD, no estoppel. The only adverse scrutiny is the § 112/§ 102/§ 103 case that was run in E.D. Tex. and settled before trial. That means the § 103 analysis below is not constrained by any Board or court holding — there is nothing to distinguish and nothing to hide behind.

1. Governing standard and the operative date

POSITA (proposed — not established by any record I located): a person with a B.S. in mechanical or biomedical engineering (or equivalent), plus 2–4 years of experience designing medical fluid-handling or pumping devices, or an M.S. with less experience; familiar with vacuum/pump control loops, elastomeric tubing and diaphragm mechanisms, wearable medical device packaging, off-the-shelf pressure/flow/level sensors, and microcontroller- or firmware-based device sequencing. I found no PTAB or court record construing "POSITA" for the '624, so this is a proposal, not a finding. The level of skill it implies is fairly ordinary — which is what makes the art below dangerous.

Priority caveat, flagged prominently: claim 1 recites a "wireless transmitter," a "sensor which detects when the collection container is full," and a "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity." None of those three phrases is visible in the definitions/summary text of the '624 specification reproduced earlier in this analysis. If the 2014-07-22 priority application does not support those limitations, claim 1's effective filing date drops to 2019-10-29, which would (a) reopen a much richer art set and (b) create an independent § 112 written-description problem. I flag this as UNVERIFIED — confirm by pulling the priority document chain from PatentCenter.

2. Claim 1, element by element — candidate art

Claim 1 (recovered, medium confidence; see §8) requires:

(P) an automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump milk from a human breast; comprising (a) a breast pump shaped to fit within a bra including (b) a housing; (c) a breast adapter to contact/form a seal with the breast, attached to the housing, including a nipple receiving cavity; (d) a pumping mechanism contained within the housing including a pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity; (e) a wireless transmitter; (f) a milk collection container configured to contact the bra; (g) a sensor which detects when the collection container is full; (h) an indicator light; and (i) a controller contained within the housing that automatically changes application of suction from a letdown phase to an expression mode.

No single reference discloses all of P and (a)–(i). The three-way combination of (e) wireless transmitter + (g) container-full sensor + (i) automatic letdown→expression switching in one in-bra device is not found in any one document I could verify. This is a § 103 case, not a § 102 case — with the important exception that if the 2014 priority fails, the analysis in Ground 3 becomes a genuine § 102/§ 103 hybrid.

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Lundy + Weniger + US 8,216,179 + Khalil/Alvarez + Van Schijndel (or Quackenbush)

Rationale (KSR (A), (C), (F)): Combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; and responding to known market forces.

• Lundy supplies the entire architectural premise: a breast pump, a breast receptor, a collection container, and "a plurality of retaining straps for securing the breast receptor against a breast… and [for] securing the breast milk collection container and the breast pump against the body of the mother… without the mother holding the breast pumping system in position." Lundy expressly contemplates a breast receptor support bra with an opening for the receptor and a body strap with pockets holding the container and pump. That is the "breast pump shaped to fit within a bra" + "container configured to contact the bra" elements.
• Weniger supplies the seal-forming breast adapter/nipple cavity and the compliance-adapting insert, plus a vacuum chamber isolated from the milk — the structural foundation for a housing-resident pumping mechanism.
• US 8,216,179 B2 supplies the wireless transmitter and the indicator/display in a breast-pump context, on the breast-shield side, and expressly enumerates radio/IR/Bluetooth/RFID — a textbook "simple substitution of one known element for another" (KSR (B)). A POSITA adding telemetry to Lundy's wearable pump would do exactly what US 8,216,179 already did on a breast shield.
• Khalil (US 2013/0023821) teaches a breast-milk container with a transparent portion and level scale, and Alvarez teaches optical/beam-break and camera-based determination of quantity of milk in the reservoir plus colored indicator lights. A POSITA asked to tell the user when the container is full would combine these with a comparator-plus-threshold in firmware — the routine use of a known sensor for its known purpose.
• Van Schijndel (US 8,376,986) / Quackenbush (US 8,070,715) supply the controller-in-housing that sequences suction; JP2005536261A supplies the two-mode letdown/expression paradigm. Automating a mode change that the art already performed manually — or that a sensor can indicate — is "applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results" (KSR (D)).

Anticipated counter: Willow's complaint asserts the claimed improvements "were not routine, conventional, or well-known" (Complaint ¶44). That is attorney argument, not evidence, and it is contradicted by Lundy (1995 priority) and Whisper Wear (2002).

Ground 2 — Furrer + Alvarez + Pollen + Rigert, further in view of Lundy/Whisper Wear and JP2005536261A

This ground deliberately uses the petitioner-side motivation statements already on the public record in the Willow/Chiaro family, which are citable as articulated rationales even though they are not adjudicated findings.

The Furrer-Alvarez-Pollen-Rigert petition (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557370](/patent/1557370)/download-documents?artifactId=8m7XD-7SHyo7AhxMZKqLA1zl23VXh65i0Qx61MEfJQycYVhbXt-GDx8) sets out four independent reasons why a POSITA would position the vacuum/air port above the nipple tunnel — which maps directly onto claim 1's "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity":

1. It lets the suction line exit the top of the bra rather than the bottom, avoiding underwire discomfort;
2. It allows shorter suction lines (less strain on the vacuum pump) and exit through a higher neckline;
3. It makes kinks/obstructions in the vacuum line visible to the wearer; and
4. It applies a known technique with predictable results to a known wearable pump.

That is a pre-built § 103 motivation for a limitation that otherwise looks like a point of novelty. Add Lundy/Whisper Wear for the in-bra container and JP2005536261A for two-mode letdown/expression operation, and claim 1's structural and control limitations are met.

Note: Furrer, Alvarez, Pollen, Rigert, Park, Silver and Kasting were identified only by short name in the earlier Prior Art section; full identifiers and dates remain NOT VERIFIED for most of them. Rigert and Furrer are directly relevant because both use a media-separation diaphragm with an air port that can sit above the nipple tunnel.

Ground 3 — CONDITIONAL GROUND: if the 2014-07-22 priority fails, the claim falls under a materially stronger art set

This is the highest-value part of the analysis and is not available on a 2014 critical date.

The '624's sibling patents have already been attacked — and, in one instance, instituted against — on the following art, none of which predates 2014-07-22:

Under § 103, Guthrie002 + Chang + WO 2020/051438 would make the automation/sensing limitations of claim 1 very difficult to defend. The 2014 priority date is the single most valuable asset the '624 has, and its support for "wireless transmitter," "container-full sensor," and "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity" should be the first thing you test. Note also the IPR2025-00554 institution (2025) shows the Board found Chang/Fang/Yuen/Khalil-type art credible against a Willow-side patent.

Ground 4 — "Obvious to try" / design-incentive ground (KSR (E), (F))

Independent of any specific reference, the objective problem the '624 sets out at 1:30-1:40 — pumps that are "awkward and cumbersome," AC-tethered, battery-hungry, "clearly visible to an observer," and that "expose the breast" — is a market-driven problem statement that existed years before 2014. Lundy and Whisper Wear had already commercialized hands-free in-bra pumping. Given a known wearable pump, adding (i) a level/volume sensor with a threshold, (ii) a radio for app telemetry, and (iii) a firmware state machine that ramps suction for letdown and then switches to a slower expression pattern is the ordinary next step of a design engineer — i.e., "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," which KSR holds is not invention. The '624 specification itself supplies the motivation for the state machine, describing letdown, extraction and expulsion phases and the cycling of suction to "stimulate milk letdown and initiate extraction during letdown."

4. Motivation-to-combine table (consolidated)

No teaching away located for any of these combinations. No reference teaches that adding telemetry, level sensing, or automatic mode switching to an in-bra pump would be inoperable or contraindicated.

5. Secondary considerations — posture and risks

• Commercial success / industry praise / copying: Willow would likely rely on the Willow Pump's commercial success, the Elvie and Momcozy copying narrative, and the 2026 ITC action. Each requires a nexus to the claim (not the product). Given claim 1's breadth (a wireless transmitter, a container-full sensor, an indicator light, and automatic mode switching), establishing nexus to those limitations — rather than to Willow's overall pump form factor — will be difficult.
• Unexpected results: the specification's failed-safe suction ceiling (−180 to −220 mmHg) and the "fully hydraulic" efficiency argument (air purged so milk fills the tube) are candidate unexpected-results evidence. But neither appears in claim 1 as recovered, and neither is tied to the automation/sensing limitations that are the likely points of novelty.
• Litigation estoppel: none. With no FWD and a settled E.D. Tex. case, a defendant retains the full art set — but also has no blueprint of what the Office accepts.

6. Bottom line

Under a 2014-07-22 critical date, claim 1 of US 10,722,624 is a strong but not overwhelming § 103 target: no single reference anticipates, but Lundy + Weniger + US 8,216,179 + Khalil/Alvarez + Van Schijndel/Quackenbush maps every element with defensible KSR rationales, and the Furrer-Alvarez-Pollen-Rigert record supplies ready-made motivations for the "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity" limitation. The litigation posture is unusual: Willow has asserted this patent commercially while never exposing it to an AIA trial, even though its siblings have been challenged four-plus times.

If, however, claim 1's "wireless transmitter," "container-full sensor," and "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity" limitations are not supported by the 2014-07-22 priority application, the effective date moves to 2019-10-29, and Ground 3 (Guthrie002 / Chang / Fang / Yuen / WO 2020/051438) becomes the dominant — and much more dangerous — case, with a parallel § 112 written-description attack.

7. Verification checklist (do these before relying on any of the above)

1. Pull the granted claim set from USPTO PatentCenter / the granted PDF for US 10,722,624 and confirm claim 1 verbatim, plus enumerate the dependent claims. The text used here is from a secondary source (Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/20200061266) corroborated by the E.D. Tex. complaint; it is not the authoritative source.
2. Pull the priority document chain (2014-07-22 application) and test whether it supports "wireless transmitter," "container-full sensor," and "pumping region above the nipple receiving cavity."
3. Retrieve the face-of-patent "References Cited" list for '624 — still not obtained; the §3A list in the Prior Art section came from sibling patents US 11,400,189 / US 11,426,499.
4. Confirm full identifiers, filing dates and publication dates for Alvarez, Furrer, Pollen, Park, Kasting, Rigert, Silver, Khalil (US 2013/0023821). Most were recovered only by short name.
5. Verify US 8,216,179 B2's issue date and priority chain (surfaced in this round, not in the earlier Prior Art section) — content confirmed from the granted PDF; bibliographic dates not independently confirmed here.
6. Verify the date of US 8,801,495 ("Bra with breast pumping apparatus integrated therein," https://patents.google.com/patent/US8801495). Do not use it unless a pre-2014-07-22 effective filing date is confirmed.
7. Note that "Makower794" (EX1014 in the Willow/Chiaro IPRs) is an ExploraMed/Willow-family publication (display 250, FIG. 57). It is not prior art to '624 — same specification, common inventorship/ownership. Do not import it into this analysis.

8. Explicit uncertainty statement

• Claim 1 text: medium confidence. Recovered from a secondary source and corroborated by the plaintiff's own characterization of "Claim 1… 53:10-54:8." All dependent claims are unknown to me; I have not analyzed them and will not speculate on their content beyond noting that under the Prior Art section's flagged correction they are likely to follow the controller/sensor/telemetry theme.
• Prior-art content: mixed confidence. Weniger (US 2004/0087898 A1), Lundy (US 6,379,327 B2) and US 8,216,179 B2 were verified from primary documents. Alvarez, Furrer, Pollen, Park, Kasting, Rigert, Silver and Khalil were verified only by short name in IPR/litigation records.
• § 103 conclusions are screening opinions, not legal conclusions, and depend on the claim construction eventually adopted. The E.D. Tex. claim construction order that construed US 10,688,229 and 10,722,624 together was not retrieved in full in this round.
• The priority-date premise is unverified and is the single largest swing factor in this analysis.