Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:
`14157
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CHIARO TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`In this patent case, Willow Innovations, Inc., and Chiaro Technology, Ltd., (Elvie) each
`
`assert infringement claims against the other. Willow alleges infringement by Elvie of U.S. Patents
`
`10,398,816, 10,625,005, 10,688,229, 10,434,228, 10,722,624, and 11,185,619. It also alleges in-
`
`fringement of two design patents—U.S. Patent D832,995 and D977,625. Elvie counterclaims for
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent 11,260,151. All of the patents relate to breast pumps.
`
`Together, the parties dispute 11 “groups” of terms from the patents. Having considered the
`
`parties’ briefing along with arguments of counsel at a September 24, 2024, hearing, the Court
`
`resolves the disputes as follows.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patents 10,398,816, 10,434,228, and 11,185,619
`
`These related patents share the same specification. See ’816 Patent at [63]; see also ’619
`
`Patent at [63]. They identify “a continuing need for a small, portable, self-powered, energy effi-
`
`cient, wearable breast pump system that is easy to use and is discrete by not exposing the breast of
`
`the user and being invisible or nearly unnoticeable when worn.” ’816 Patent at 1:35–39. The
`
`1 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:
`14158
`
`patents also note the desirability of monitoring a nursing baby’s intake to ensure the baby is re-
`
`ceiving adequate nutrition. Id. at 1:40–41. The patents thus teach “a breast pump system that easily
`
`and accurately monitors the volume of milk pumped by the system, to make it convenient for the
`
`nursing mother to know how much milk has been extracted by breast pumping.” Id. at 1:41–45.
`
`FIG. 20 of the ’816 Patent
`
`
`
`Figure 20 (above) of the ’816 Patent shows an embodiment 100 of a system in contact with
`
`a user’s breast 2. The system includes compression members 36, 38, a battery 48, a one-way valve
`
`50, a controller 52, a sensor 54, and a collection container 60. The sensor 54 determines the pres-
`
`sure to which the breast 2 is exposed and provides that information to the controller 52. Using that
`
`information, the controller 52 adjusts the position or speed of the compression members 36, 38 to
`
`vary or maintain the suction pressure. See generally ’816 Patent at 29:15–30:19.
`
`2 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:
`14159
`
`All of the disputes from the ’816 Patent concern terms only in Claim 1, which is directed
`
`to a breast pump system that includes a breast pump communicating with an external computer.
`
`Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. An automated breast pump system for pumping milk from a
`breast of a user, comprising:
`a breast pump configured to fit within a bra, the breast pump
`including:
`a breast pump shell housing a milk flow path;
`a pumping mechanism, the pumping mechanism con-
`tained completely within the breast pump shell;
`a fluid container configured to directly engage and be sup-
`ported by an outer surface of the breast pump shell,
`wherein the fluid container is connected to the milk flow
`path;
`a flange attached to the breast pump shell and configured to
`receive the breast, the flange including a rigid nipple re-
`ceiving portion and a bottom portion, the bottom portion
`configured below the nipple receiving portion during
`use, the nipple receiving portion including a proximal
`end defining an opening; and
`an external computer that automatically tracks pumping and
`communicates with the pumping mechanism;
`wherein the pumping mechanism is associated with the rigid
`nipple receiving portion and the pumping mechanism is
`configured to create a suction force from the rigid nipple re-
`ceiving portion, the suction force and the milk flow path
`both being directed generally upward relative to the bot-
`tom portion of the flange.
`
`’816 Patent at 50:45–51:2 (disputed terms in bold).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’619 Patent recites:
`
`1. An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump
`milk from a human breast, the automated system comprising:
`
`3 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:
`14160
`
`a breast pump shaped to fit within a bra, the breast pump includ-
`ing:
`a housing;
`a vacuum pumping mechanism contained within the
`housing and configured to pump the milk from the hu-
`man breast;
`a wireless transmitter;
`a skin contact member configured to contact and form a seal
`with the breast, the skin contact member attached to the
`housing and including a nipple receiving portion;
`a milk collection container having a rigid exterior surface
`configured to contact the bra; and
`a non-contact pressure sensor that measures vacuum levels
`within the automated system, the non-contact pressure
`sensor adjacent the nipple receiving portion.
`
`’619 Patent at 50:44–61 (disputed terms in bold).
`
`FIG. 39A (left) and FIG. 39B (right) of the ’228 Patent
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’228 Patent are directed to minimizing the loss of milk from the pumping
`
`system when the system is detached from the breast. To accomplish this, the patent teaches a struc-
`
`tural arrangement like the one shown in Figures 39A–39B (above). The system includes a valve
`
`390 in a small tube 32S. The valve opens “upwardly” when only a very small vacuum is generated
`
`4 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:
`14161
`
`in tubing 32, but stays closed under the pressure of milk when the tubing 32 is completely filled.
`
`With this arrangement, the system can be unsealed and detached from the breast 2, but the milk in
`
`the tubing 32 will not escape through the closed valve 390. See generally ’228 Patent at 42:1–25.
`
`Claim 11 recites this arrangement as:
`
`11. An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump
`milk from a breast, the automated system comprising:
`a breast pump configured to fit within a bra, the breast pump
`comprising a breast pump housing;
`a breast contacting structure configured and dimensioned to
`form a seal with the breast;
`a milk flow path; and
`a collection container for storing milk pumped from the
`breast;
`wherein the milk flow path and collection container are con-
`tained within the breast pump housing;
`
`wherein milk extracted from the breast flows to the col-
`lection container upwardly through the milk flow
`path relative to a bottom of the breast contacting
`structure.
`
`’228 Patent at 51:17–27 (disputed terms in bold).
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent 10,688,229 and 10,722,624
`
`These related patents, which share the same specification,1 concern a breast pump system
`
`that uses a controller to change between operational modes. The patents teach using a sensor to
`
`detect pressure within a tube connecting the breast to the collection container. Based on the pres-
`
`sure sensed in the tube, the controller might change from a mode used to start “letdown”—the
`
`
`1 See ’624 Patent at [63] (noting the underlying application is a continuation of U.S. application
`no. 15/180,345, which is the application from which the ’229 Patent issued).
`
`5 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:
`14162
`
`process by which milk is released from the milk glands into the milk ducts—to an extraction mode
`
`that adjusts compression to maintain a predetermined suction. See generally ’624 Patent at 40:1–
`
`19.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’624 Patent recites:
`
`1. An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump
`milk from a human breast, the system comprising:
`a breast pump shaped to fit within a bra, the breast pump includ-
`ing:
`a housing sized to fit within the bra;
`a breast adapter configured to contact and form a seal with
`the breast, the breast adapter being attached to the hous-
`ing and including a nipple receiving cavity;
`a pumping mechanism contained within the housing, the
`pumping mechanism including a pumping region
`above the nipple receiving cavity;
`a wireless transmitter;
`a milk collection container configured to contact the bra;
`a sensor which detects when the milk collection container is
`full;
`an indicator light; and
`a controller contained within the housing that automatically
`changes application of suction on the human breast
`through the nipple receiving cavity by the pumping
`mechanism from a letdown phase to an expression
`mode, wherein the controller automatically changes ap-
`plication of the suction from the letdown phase to the ex-
`pression mode upon sensing a letdown.
`
`’624 Patent at 53:12–54:7 (disputed terms in bold).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’229 Patent recites:
`
`1. A wearable, portable self-powered breast pump system for
`pumping milk from a breast, comprising:
`
`6 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:
`14163
`
`a main body;
`a breast adapter;
`a milk collection container; and
`a pump mechanism configured to pump milk from the breast to
`the milk collection container;
`wherein the breast adapter, the pump mechanism and the milk
`collection container are collectively sized and shaped to fit
`within a user’s bra, and the pump mechanism and milk col-
`lection container are contained within the main body;
`wherein a latch suction is maintained throughout a pumping
`session.
`
`’229 Patent at 53:11–23 (disputed terms in bold).
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent 10,625,005
`
`The ’005 Patent is entitled “Breast Pump Assembly With Remote Interface.” ’005 Patent
`
`at [54]; see also id. at figs.22–28 (showing various aspects of a remote interface). “By tracking the
`
`times of use and/or number of uses, or even pump cycle counts, for example, the controller, or
`
`external computer can alert the user when it is time to change components or to report on usage
`
`aspects.” Id. at 24:62–65. “In this way, information such as the tracking of extraction date and
`
`time, volume extracted, etc. can be recorded and stored with regard to each milk collection con-
`
`tainer used with the system . . . .” Id. at 24:65–25:2.
`
`The disputed terms are found in Claims 1–2. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. An automated system for controlling pumping cycles to pump
`milk from a human breast, the system comprising:
`a breast pump configured to fit within a bra, the breast pump
`including:
`a chassis;
`an outer shell attached to the chassis;
`a pump mechanism attached to the chassis between the
`
`7 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:
`14164
`
`outer shell and chassis;
`a battery contained between the outer shell and chassis;
`a circuit board contained between the outer shell and chas-
`sis;
`a sensor electrically connected to the circuit board;
`a removeable breast contacting structure configured to con-
`tact and form a seal with the breast, the breast contacting
`structure including a nipple receiving portion below the
`pump mechanism; and
`a milk collection container;
`wherein when the removable breast contacting structure is
`removed, the pump mechanism, battery and circuit
`board are positioned between the outer shell and the
`chassis;
`wherein the pump mechanism comprises two drivers that
`displace a flexible member to generate vacuum pressure
`in the nipple receiving portion;
`. . . .
`
`’005 Patent at 28:2–41 (disputed terms in bold). Claim 2 recites “[t]he automated system of claim
`
`1, wherein the breast pump automatically senses letdown.” Id. at 28:42–43.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent 11,260,151
`
`The ’151 Patent summarizes the inventive breast pump as “a housing shaped at least in part
`
`to fit inside a bra; a piezo air-pump fitted in the housing and forming part of a closed loop system
`
`that drives a separate, deformable diaphragm to generate negative air pressure, that diaphragm
`
`being removably mounted on a breast shield.” ’151 Patent at 3:57–62. The patent aims to ensure
`
`“the device does not feel top-heavy to a person while using the pump.” Id. at 7:25–26.
`
`To do this, the claims require the system’s center of gravity, when the milk container is
`
`empty, to be “substantially at or below the horizontal line that passes through the filling point on
`
`8 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:
`14165
`
`the breast shield.” Id. at 7:23–25. Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A breast pump device that is configured as a self-contained, in-
`bra wearable device, the breast pump device comprising:
`(i) a housing that includes (a) a battery, and (b) an air pump sys-
`tem powered by the battery and generating negative air pres-
`sure;
`(ii) a breast shield made up of a breast flange and a nipple tunnel;
`and
`(iii) a milk container that is configured to attach to the housing;
`and
`in which a location of the centre of gravity of the breast pump
`device is, when in use, below a centre of the nipple tunnel
`when the milk container is empty.
`
`Id. at 71:9–21 (disputed term in bold). Claim 22 then requires the breast shield to be “a one piece
`
`item that in use presents a single continuous surface to a nipple and a breast . . . .” Id. at 72:28–32.
`
`The parties dispute whether Claim 1’s center-of gravity requirement and Claim 2’s “single con-
`
`tinuous surface” requirement are indefinite.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patents D832,995 and D977,625
`
`Willow asserts these two related design patents directed to ornamental designs for a breast
`
`pump. See ’625 Patent at [63]. Elvie asks the Court to hold the claim of the ’995 Patent indefinite
`
`based on inconsistencies in the figures. Dkt. No. 82 at 25–26. Alternatively, Elvie asks the Court
`
`to construe the claims to identify the functional elements. Id. at 27–30.
`
`9 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:
`14166
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’995 Patent (left) and FIG. 1 of the ’625 Patent (right)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As such, if the
`
`parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their meaning. See, e.g., Verizon
`
`Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Gajarsa, J., concur-
`
`ring in part); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
`
`Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a
`
`matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
`
`explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every
`
`claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.
`
`When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363,
`
`10 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:
`14167
`
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must therefore “look to the
`
`words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations
`
`omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specifica-
`
`tion.” Id.
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One, Inc. v.
`
`Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). For
`
`certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in
`
`the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
`
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must
`
`look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.”).
`
`But for claim terms with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “those sources available to the
`
`public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language
`
`to mean . . . [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
`
`prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
`
`of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Claiming
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
`
`11 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:
`14168
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a structure may be claimed as a “means . . . for per-
`
`forming a specified function,” and an act may be claimed as a “step for performing a specified
`
`function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002). When it applies,
`
`§ 112(f) limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure, materials, or acts described
`
`in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof.” Williamson,
`
`792 F.3d at 1347. “[S]tructure can be recited in various ways, including [by using] ‘a claim term
`
`with a structural definition that is either provided in the specification or generally known in the
`
`art,’ or a description of the claim limitation’s operation and ‘how the function is achieved in the
`
`context of the invention.’” Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quot-
`
`ing Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`C.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification de-
`
`lineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). The claims “must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is
`
`claimed” while recognizing that “some modicum of uncertainty” is inherent due to the limitations
`
`of language. Id. at 908. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix
`
`Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`D.
`
`Construction of a Design Patent
`
`“[D]esign patents typically are claimed as shown in drawings, and . . . claim construction
`
`is adapted accordingly.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). For that reason, trial courts need not provide a detailed verbal
`
`12 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:
`14169
`
`description of the claimed design. Id. But “a district court’s decision regarding the level of detail
`
`to be used in describing the claimed design is a matter within the court’s discretion.” Id.
`
`“[A] trial court can usefully guide the finder of fact by addressing a number of other issues
`
`that bear on the scope of the claim.” Id. at 680. “Those include such matters as describing the role
`
`of particular conventions in design patent drafting, such as the role of broken lines, . . . assessing
`
`and describing the effect of any representations that may have been made in the course of the
`
`prosecution history, . . . and distinguishing between those features of the claimed design that are
`
`ornamental and those that are purely functional.” Id. “Where a design contains both functional and
`
`non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-
`
`functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent.” Oddzon Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122
`
`F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is the skill level of a hypothetical person who is pre-
`
`sumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). In resolving the appropriate level of ordinary skill, courts consider the types of
`
`and solutions to problems encountered in the art, the speed of innovation, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education of workers active in the field. Id. Importantly, “[a] person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`B. Willow’s Asserted Utility Patents
`
`Elvie’s expert characterizes a skilled artisan as one with “at least an undergraduate or grad-
`
`uate degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or related field, in
`
`13 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:
`14170
`
`combination with at least five years of related work experience developing medical or personal
`
`care devices.” Stone Decl., Dkt. No. 75-10 ¶ 18. Willow does not proffer a level of ordinary skill.
`
`Accordingly, for the terms found in Willow’s utility patents, the Court adopts Elvie’s characteriza-
`
`tion of a skilled artisan.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent 11,260,151
`
`For the ’151 Patent, Elvie again characterizes a skilled artisan as someone with “at least an
`
`undergraduate or graduate degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, electrical engineer-
`
`ing, or related field, in combination with at least five years of related work experience developing
`
`medical or personal care devices.” Dkt. No. 77 at 9. Willow argues a skilled artisan “would have
`
`at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related field, in combination with at
`
`least two years of related work experience developing medical devices.” Dkt. No. 81 at 3. The
`
`Court, however, would reach the same conclusion regarding the disputed terms from this patent
`
`under either level of skill, so it need not resolve the differences between the parties’ proposals.
`
`D. Willow’s Asserted Design Patents
`
`The scope of a design patent is determined from the perspective of an “ordinary observer.”
`
`See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678 (holding the “ordinary observer” test is the sole test for
`
`infringement of a design patent). An “ordinary observer” is one who would observe the product
`
`during its normal use throughout its life—“beginning after completion of manufacture or assembly
`
`and ending with the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of the article.” Contessa Food
`
`Prods. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Elvie asserts such a person is “a
`
`pregnant woman, a lactating mother, or a friend/family member who may be purchasing baby
`
`shower gifts.” Fletcher Decl., Dkt. No. 75-11 ¶ 29. Willow does not contest this characterization.
`
`14 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:
`14171
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“a pump mechanism” (’229 Patent, Claim 1); “a pumping mechanism” (’816
`Patent, Claim 1; ’624 Patent, Claim 1; ’005 Patent, Claim 1); “a vacuum
`pumping mechanism” (’619 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`Willow’s Construction
`Not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); no con-
`struction necessary/and ordinary meaning
`Alternatively:
`Function: “pumping”/ “vacuum pumping” /
`“pump”
`Structure: “one or more pumps,” or equiva-
`lents thereof
`
`Elvie’s Construction
`Means-Plus-Function
`Function: “creating a suction force to pump
`milk”
`Structure: actuators and a compressible tube
`that direct milk generally upward and away
`from the lower end of the flange when the
`breast pump is upright”
`
`The parties dispute whether these are means-plus-function terms and, if they are, the proper
`
`corresponding structure. Willow argues these terms connote sufficiently definite structure to a
`
`skilled artisan, who would understand them as referring to a pump. Dkt. No. 76 at 3. Willow also
`
`points to Elvie’s expert’s declaration that “[a]t and around the alleged priority date for these pa-
`
`tents, a variety of different styles of pumping system were known and implemented in breast pump
`
`devices, such as peristaltic style pumps . . . , diaphragm pumps, centrifugal pumps, and piston
`
`pumps.” Stone Decl., Dkt. No. 75-10 ¶ 23. Willow analogizes to Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-
`
`Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Bryson, J.), in which the court held “detent mecha-
`
`nism” was not a § 112 ¶ 6 term.
`
`According to Elvie, these are means-plus-function terms. “Mechanism,” it says, is a
`
`“nonce” word, which is only modified by the functional term “pumping.” Dkt. No. 82 at 5. And
`
`while there were multiple types of pumping systems used in breast pumps at the time of invention,
`
`id. (citing Stone Decl., Dkt. No. 75-10 ¶¶ 58–59), a skilled artisan would not have understood
`
`“pumping mechanism” as including every type of pump. Instead, a skilled artisan “would have
`
`15 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:
`14172
`
`understood that the types of pumping systems employed in other applications would have a sig-
`
`nificant effect on an in-bra wearable breast pump’s operability and design such that there would
`
`be no generally understood meaning in the art that would encompass all pumps.” Id. at 6. Finally,
`
`Elvie distinguishes Greenberg based on the court’s reliance on definitions of “detent” that showed
`
`“specific means” for a “detent mechanism. Id.
`
`These are not means-plus-function terms. To start, the Court presumes § 112(f) does not
`
`apply because the terms do not use the word “means.” See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (“the
`
`failure to use the word ‘means’ . . . creates a rebuttable presumption . . . that § 112[(f)] does not
`
`apply”). But “the presumption can be overcome . . . if the challenger demonstrates that the claim
`
`term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting suffi-
`
`cient structure for performing that function.’” Id. at 1349 (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., 232 F.3d 877,
`
`880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “[A] critical question is whether the claim term is used in common parlance
`
`or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, including either a particular struc-
`
`ture or a class of structures.” MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336,
`
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding “wireless device means” does not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 because it de-
`
`notes a class of structures).
`
`Here, however, Elvie does not overcome the threshold presumption. Elvie argues for
`
`means-plus-function treatment based on the application in which the pump is used, but that’s not
`
`part of § 112(f) analysis. For example, Elvie’s expert explains “the device shape, pump flow ar-
`
`chitecture, and operational features of the pump disclosed . . . in each of the asserted patents results
`
`from using the specific style of pumping system disclosed,” Stone Decl., Dkt. No. 75-10 ¶ 58, but
`
`that just attempts to limit claim scope to what’s disclosed in the specification.
`
`16 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:
`14173
`
`The test for determining whether § 112(f) applies does not depend on how well the struc-
`
`ture “works” with the rest of the claimed or disclosed elements, but whether the term is used by
`
`skilled artisans in the pertinent art to designate structure. On that question, Elvie’s expert declares
`
`“a variety of different styles of pumping system were known and implemented in breast pump
`
`devices, such as peristaltic style pumps . . . , diaphragm pumps, centrifugal pumps, and piston
`
`pumps.” Stone Decl., Dkt. No. 75-10 ¶ 23. Given that, a skilled artisan would have understood
`
`“pumping mechanism” to a well known class of stuctures used in these devices at the time of
`
`invention.
`
`This conclusion comports with Judge Bryson’s reasoning in Greenberg. There, the claims
`
`at issue recited a wheel and a handle “having a cooperating detent mechanism defining the conjoint
`
`rotation of said shafts in predetermined intervals.” Greenberg, 91 F.3d 1580 at 1582. The trial court
`
`concluded “detent mechanism” was a means-plus-function term in part because it “did not describe
`
`a particular structure but described any structure that performed a detent function.” Id. at 1583.
`
`But according to the appellate court, “that a particular mechanism . . . is defined in functional terms
`
`is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term into a [means-plus-function term].”
`
`Id.
`
`Many devices take their names from the functions they perform. The examples are
`innumerable, such as “filter,” “brake,” “clamp,” “screwdriver,” or “lock.” Indeed,
`several of the devices at issue in this case have names that describe their functions,
`such as “graspers,” “cutters,” and “suture applicators.”
`
`“Detent” (or its equivalent, “detent mechanism”) is just such a term. Dictionary
`definitions make clear that the noun “detent” denotes a type of device with a gen-
`erally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are
`expressed in functional terms. See Random House Unabridged Dictionary 541 (2d
`ed. 1993) (“a mechanism that temporarily keeps one part in a certain position rela-
`tive to that of another, and can be released by applying force to one of the parts”);
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 616 (1968) (“a part of a mechanism
`
`17 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:
`14174
`
`(as a catch, pawl, dog, or click) that locks or unlocks a movement”); G.H.F. Nayler,
`Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering (4th ed. 1996) (“A catch or checking device,
`the removal of which allows machinery to work such as the detent which regulates
`the striking of a clock.”). It is true that the term “detent” does not call to mind a
`single well-defined structure, but the same could be said of other commonplace
`structural terms such as “clamp” or “container.” What is important is not simply
`that a “detent” or “detent mechanism” is defined in terms of what it does, but that
`the term, as the name for structure, has a reasonably well understood meaning in
`the art.
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`That same reasoning applies here. “Pumping mechanism” does not call to mind a single
`
`well-defined structure, and although “pumping mechanism” might be defined in terms of what it
`
`does, the term, as the name for structure, has a reasonably well-understood meaning in the art. The
`
`evidence, including Dr. Stone’s declaration, shows as much. And although Elvie attempts to dis-
`
`tinguish Greenberg based on the appellate court’s citation to definitions that allegedly provide “a
`
`specific function through specific means,” Dkt. No. 82 at 6, at most those definitions provide ex-
`
`amples of “specific means.” In fact, the definitions on which the appellate court relied “are ex-
`
`pressed in functional terms.” Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583.
`
`To summarize, Elvie has not shown these are means-plus-function terms. Accordingly, the
`
`Court will give these terms “plain and ordinary meaning” constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`18 / 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 157 Filed 01/10/25 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:
`14175
`
`B.
`
`“the suction force and the milk flow path both being directed generally upward
`relative to the bottom portion of th