Short Summary
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Detailed Summary
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited regarding patent number 11813381, which covers breast pump systems. The Board determined that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable based on numerous grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Key to the decision was the adoption of the Petitioner's definition for a person having ordinary skill in the art (a mechanical engineering background with experience in human breast pump equipment). The Board specifically agreed that combining Chang’s portable, in-bra wearable system with Fang’s elastic diaphragm technology renders independent Claim 1 obvious.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. vs Willow Innovations, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hisense USA Corporation et al.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
BPI Labs, LLC et al.vsEli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.