Short Summary
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
Detailed Summary
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The petition asserts that numerous claims related to breast pump technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner presents two main grounds: one combining Chang, Weber, and Guthrie to show motivation for combination in certain claim sets (Ground 1A), and a broader ground utilizing all four references—Chang, Weber, Guthrie, and Khalil—to demonstrate obviousness across various limitations (Ground 1B).
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 Chiaro Technology Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al.vsTecan Group AG
The USPTO Director denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00015, leaving Tecan's patent intact.
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al.vsHowmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al.vsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology's request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the petitioner’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness unpersuasive.
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.