Willow Innovations v. Chiaro Technology: 7-Patent Breast Pump Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Willow Innovations filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of seven patents covering wearable breast pump assemblies, pressure sensor systems, and remote-interface technology. After 842 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
Seven-Patent Wearable Breast Pump Battle Ends at Gilstrap’s Court
Willow Innovations, Inc. filed this infringement action on May 24, 2023, in the Eastern District of Texas against Chiaro Technology, Ltd. — the company behind the Elvie breast pump brand. The complaint asserted seven patents spanning breast pump assemblies with breast adapters, remote interfaces, flange systems, pressure sensors, and two design patents covering the product’s appearance. The asserted portfolio reflects Willow’s investment in wearable, hands-free breast pump technology and signals a direct competitive conflict with Chiaro’s rival product line.
The case closed on September 12, 2025, via a joint stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted the stipulation and ordered all of Willow’s claims dismissed with prejudice, meaning Willow is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Chiaro in a future action. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a neutral cost allocation consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested ruling.
At 842 days, this case ran longer than many E.D. Texas patent matters that settle early, suggesting meaningful litigation activity — potentially including claim construction briefing or discovery — before the parties reached resolution. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms or licensing arrangements. Whether Chiaro obtained a license, agreed to design-arounds, or secured other concessions remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 842 days
842 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases, suggesting substantive pre-trial activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and has the force of a final adjudication on the merits. Willow Innovations cannot re-file these same infringement claims against Chiaro based on the same patents and the same accused conduct. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to re-file.
Permanent bar on re-filingWillow gives up the right to re-litigate — at a price
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Willow Innovations permanently relinquishes its ability to pursue these specific infringement claims against Chiaro. However, dismissals of this type are frequently accompanied by confidential settlements, which may include licensing royalties, design commitments, or covenants not to sue. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, so it would be incorrect to characterise this as a loss for Willow without further information.
Terms undisclosedChiaro secures permanent closure on these seven patent claims
Chiaro Technology achieves certainty: the seven Willow patents asserted in this action cannot form the basis of a new lawsuit by Willow for the same accused products and conduct. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Chiaro did not extract a fee award, but it also avoided one. Any confidential terms agreed upon are not part of the public record. Chiaro retains exposure to different claims on the same patents if new infringing conduct were alleged, though the practical litigation risk here appears resolved.
Litigation risk resolvedWearable breast pump IP competition signals high-stakes sector
The breadth of Willow’s asserted portfolio — seven patents covering utility and design aspects of wearable breast pump systems — illustrates the intensity of IP competition in the wearable medtech space. Competitors developing breast pump assemblies, particularly wearable or hands-free designs with remote interfaces and pressure-sensing features, should treat this case as a signal that design freedom in this category carries meaningful litigation risk. The resolution does not invalidate any of the seven patents.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Willow Innovations, Inc. | Company | Wearable breast pump innovator — holder of US10722624B2 and 6 further asserted patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chiaro Technology, Ltd. | Company | Chiaro Technology, Ltd. — maker of the Elvie wearable breast pump, UK-based medtech companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Asher Benjamin Griffin | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carolyn Wall | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cason Garrett Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Constance Pei Hwa Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frances Mackay | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grant Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Fountain | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura M. Burson | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Miao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert F. Shaffer | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy S. Durst | Attorney | Counsel for Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Willow Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex Alfano | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Covington | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Coleman | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Donald Banowit | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josephine Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle Conklin | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Webb | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas J Nowak | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nirav N Desai | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Cloud | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richa Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gilliam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing Chiaro Technology, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a standard acceptance of a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation — Judge Gilstrap did not evaluate the merits. The ‘with prejudice’ designation carries significant legal weight: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Willow from re-litigating these specific claims against Chiaro. The mutual cost-bearing provision — ‘each party shall bear its own costs and fees’ — is a neutral allocation that neither rewards nor penalises either side, and is typically consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral surrender.
US10722624B2 — Wearable Breast Pump Assembly with Breast Adapter
The seven asserted patents span both the functional and aesthetic architecture of Willow’s wearable breast pump platform. Utility patents US10722624B2, US10434228B2, US11185619B2, US10398816B2, and US10625005B2 collectively cover breast pump assemblies with breast adapters, remote interfaces, flange systems, pressure sensors, and wearable configurations. Design patents USD832995S and USD977625S protect the ornamental appearance of the device. Application dates ranging across 2016–2019 suggest a coordinated filing strategy built around Willow’s commercial product launch and iterative development cycle.
Strategically, this portfolio positions Willow to challenge competitors across multiple dimensions — from the mechanical interface between pump and body to the software-driven remote control layer and the physical design language of the product. For competitors developing wearable lactation devices, the combined scope of these patents creates significant design freedom constraints. The patents remain valid and enforceable following this dismissal, meaning the risk to third-party developers is unchanged. Any company shipping breast pump products with pressure-sensing, remote-interface, or hands-free wearable features in the US market should conduct formal FTO analysis against this portfolio.
Should your team run an FTO against Willow’s breast pump patent portfolio?
If your organisation is developing, manufacturing, or distributing wearable or hands-free breast pump products in the United States — particularly devices incorporating pressure sensors, wireless remote interfaces, flange assemblies, or distinctive industrial designs — this seven-patent portfolio demands formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The dismissal of this case does not invalidate any claim. Willow retains full enforcement rights against third parties, and the breadth of the portfolio suggests a company willing to assert aggressively.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map each asserted patent’s claim scope against a proposed product architecture in minutes, identifying overlap risks before they become litigation exposure. Upload your product specifications and run a claim-by-claim comparison across US10722624B2, US11185619B2, US10398816B2, and the co-asserted patents to generate a defensible, documented clearance analysis — the kind that supports both product launch decisions and investor due diligence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10722624B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wearable medtech patent cases in E.D. Texas and related courts
Cases involving wearable breast pump and connected medical device patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable patent-active federal courts.
What this case signals for the wearable medtech IP landscape
Seven asserted patents, 842 days of litigation, and a with-prejudice exit — this dispute offers clear signals for IP strategy in wearable breast pump and adjacent medtech categories.
With-prejudice dismissal does not mean the patents are invalid
All seven Willow patents survive this litigation intact. No invalidity ruling was issued. Any competitor or potential licensee should treat US10722624B2 and the co-asserted patents as live, enforceable assets. A dismissal driven by settlement does not reduce the future assertion risk these patents pose to third parties in the wearable breast pump space.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred forum for wearable medtech patent disputes
Willow’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s court in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the forum’s plaintiff-friendly reputation in patent matters. Companies in the wearable medical device sector — particularly those with US operations or distribution — should monitor this court for infringement actions and ensure FTO analysis covers the full Willow patent portfolio, not just patents asserted in this case.
Willow v Chiaro — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Willow Innovations is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Chiaro Technology based on the seven asserted patents and the same accused conduct. The court accepted the parties’ joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No merits ruling was issued, and the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties.
Willow asserted seven patents: US10722624B2 (breast pump assembly with breast adapter), US10434228B2 (assembly with remote interface), US11185619B2 (system with flange), US10398816B2 (system with pressure sensor), US10625005B2 (breast pump assembly), USD832995S (design patent), and USD977625S (design patent). The portfolio covers both functional and ornamental aspects of Willow’s wearable breast pump platform.
The public record does not disclose the reasons for settlement. However, a joint with-prejudice dismissal after 842 days typically suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution — potentially including a license, design-around commitments, or other commercial terms. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a compromise outcome rather than capitulation by either side.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not constitute an invalidity ruling. All seven Willow patents — including utility patents and design patents — remain valid and enforceable. Third parties operating in the wearable breast pump space retain the same FTO risk they faced before this case was filed, and Willow retains the right to assert these patents against other defendants.
Willow Innovations was represented by O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — two firms with significant patent litigation practices. Chiaro Technology was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC and Gilliam & Smith LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.