Dao Health v. Chiaro Technology: Breast Pump Patent Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal
Dao Health filed suit against Chiaro Technology Limited in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of two breast pump device patents. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 476 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs — a resolution that typically signals a private settlement.
A quiet resolution in the competitive wearable breast pump market
Dao Health filed this patent infringement action on June 21, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Chiaro Technology Limited, the UK-based company behind the Elvie brand of wearable breast pump products. The complaint asserted two patents — US8118772B2 and US7559915B2 — both directed at breast pump devices incorporating a self-contained breast milk reservoir, a core design feature distinguishing modern wearable pumps from earlier clip-on or tubed configurations.
The case concluded on October 9, 2024, when the court granted a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is significant: Dao Health is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Chiaro Technology on the same patents in a future action. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, which is a standard term in privately negotiated resolutions and removes any inference of a fee-award winner.
The 476-day duration is consistent with a case that progressed through at least early discovery or claim construction stages before the parties reached resolution. The joint nature of the motion, combined with the with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing, strongly suggests a private commercial settlement whose specific terms are not disclosed in the public record. What drove resolution — licensing, cross-licensing, or a commercial agreement — remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 476 days
476 days — above the median for E.D. Tex. patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses future action on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata. Dao Health cannot re-file these same infringement claims against Chiaro Technology on US8118772B2 or US7559915B2. The joint nature of the motion — both parties agreeing to the dismissal — is procedurally straightforward and reflects a negotiated exit from litigation rather than a court-imposed judgment.
Rule 41 — permanent bar on re-filingDao Health exits with claims permanently closed but no public loss
For Dao Health, a with-prejudice dismissal means the infringement claims against Chiaro Technology are permanently resolved. The patents themselves remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Whether Dao Health received commercial consideration — a license fee, a cross-license, or product market terms — is not reflected in the public docket. The absence of a fee-shifting award suggests neither side was found to have litigated in bad faith.
Patents survive; claims against Chiaro closedChiaro Technology secures permanent resolution of this enforcement action
Chiaro Technology obtains certainty: Dao Health cannot revive these specific claims. For a product company operating in a competitive wearable health technology market, eliminating patent litigation risk on core device architecture patents is commercially valuable. The mutual cost-bearing order means Chiaro avoids any attorneys’ fee exposure beyond its own litigation spend, which is consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than an adjudicated defence victory.
Permanent resolution — no fee exposureWearable breast pump IP landscape remains active and contested
The resolution without a public merits ruling leaves the validity and scope of US8118772B2 and US7559915B2 untested on the record. Competitors and new entrants in the wearable breast pump sector should treat these patents as enforceable assets of uncertain scope until further inter partes review or court determination. The pattern of major players resolving disputes privately is consistent with a sector where commercial relationships and market positioning often outweigh courtroom outcomes.
Patents remain enforceable — sector watch warrantedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dao Health | Individual | Medical device IP holder — asserting US8118772B2 and US7559915B2 for breast pump technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chiaro Technology Limited | Individual | Chiaro Technology Limited — UK-based developer of the Elvie wearable breast pump product lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryce Thomas Barcelo | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meng Xi | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samantha Louise Fenwick | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Mark Drezdzon | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shawn Daniel Blackburn | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tanner Laiche | Attorney | Counsel for Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arguello Hope & Associates, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Dao HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex Alfano | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Covington | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Byron L. Pickard | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Coleman | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josephine Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Webb | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nirav N Desai | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Cloud | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richa Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint framing verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice and denying all pending motions as moot. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it functions as a final judgment for res judicata purposes, permanently extinguishing Dao Health’s ability to re-litigate these claims against Chiaro Technology. The mutual cost-bearing provision — expressly stated in the order — is a deliberate deviation from any fee-shifting analysis and is characteristic of privately negotiated commercial resolutions.
US8118772B2 & US7559915B2 — Wearable Breast Pump Device Architecture
US8118772B2 (application no. 12/113563) and US7559915B2 (application no. 11/104776) both relate to breast pump device architecture, specifically configurations that incorporate a self-contained breast milk reservoir within the pump unit itself. This design approach — eliminating external tubing and separate collection containers — is the core technical differentiator of the modern wearable breast pump category, enabling discrete, hands-free use. The earlier priority dates of these applications suggest foundational coverage in the wearable pump space.
Strategically, these patents represent potential platform-level IP for anyone commercialising wearable or hands-free breast pump products. Chiaro Technology’s Elvie pump — a market-leading wearable device — sits squarely in the product category these patents describe, which explains why Dao Health selected it as the litigation target. With no claim construction order published and no invalidity ruling on record, the scope and validity of these claims remain entirely open questions for the broader competitive set, including emerging entrants from consumer electronics and femtech sectors.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8118772B2 and US7559915B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising a wearable breast pump with an integrated milk collection reservoir should treat these patents as a priority FTO target. The claims appear to cover a structural feature — the self-contained reservoir — that is now standard in the category. Because no court has construed the claims or found them invalid, their full scope remains uncertain. Product engineers, particularly those working on next-generation or lower-cost wearable pump designs, face real infringement risk without a formal opinion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8118772B2 and US7559915B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that could be used to challenge validity, and surface any continuation or family member patents that may extend coverage. Running a structured FTO analysis now — before product launch or market entry — is significantly less costly than defending an E.D. Texas infringement action. Use Eureka to generate a claim landscape and identify design-around opportunities specific to your device architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8118772B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar breast pump and wearable MedTech patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving wearable medical device patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas follow consistent enforcement patterns — explore comparable disputes below.
What this case signals for the wearable breast pump IP landscape
A quiet with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas often marks the start of a commercial relationship, not just the end of a dispute.
With-prejudice dismissal does not neutralise the asserted patents
US8118772B2 and US7559915B2 remain granted and enforceable. Dao Health retains full authority to assert them against any third party. Product teams working on wearable pump architecture — particularly self-contained reservoir designs — should treat these patents as live IP risk regardless of this case’s resolution.
Eastern District of Texas remains a high-stakes venue for MedTech patent disputes
The selection of E.D. Texas by Dao Health follows a well-established plaintiff preference for this venue’s speed and plaintiff-friendly reputation. Defendants in this space should anticipate early and aggressive case management timelines. The 476-day resolution here, while above median, still reflects pressure to settle before expensive trial preparation.
Health v Chiaro — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on October 9, 2024, pursuant to a joint motion filed by both parties. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal permanently bars Dao Health from re-asserting the same claims against Chiaro Technology on the same patents, though the patents remain enforceable against third parties.
Dao Health asserted US8118772B2 (application no. 12/113563) and US7559915B2 (application no. 11/104776). Both patents relate to breast pump devices with self-contained breast milk reservoirs — the core architectural feature of modern wearable breast pumps. The accused product was a breast pump device with a self-contained breast milk reservoir.
Not necessarily. A dismissal with prejudice by joint motion reflects a negotiated resolution, not a judicial finding in favour of either party. There is no merits ruling on infringement or validity. Chiaro Technology benefits from the permanent bar on these specific claims, but the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against others. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a private settlement.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only Dao Health’s claims against Chiaro Technology specifically. Both patents remain granted and in force. Dao Health retains the right to assert them against any other party accused of infringing their claims. No invalidity finding was made in this case, so the patents carry full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its plaintiff-friendly reputation, experienced patent docket, and historically fast case management. Dao Health’s selection of E.D. Texas is consistent with the practice of patent assertion entities and operating companies seeking litigation leverage. The court’s local patent rules impose structured early disclosure requirements that can accelerate settlement pressure on defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.