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
Google LLCvs--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
Pascal TechnologiesvsCambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
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.