Dao Health v. Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dao Health (California)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rockman, Videbeck & O'Connor; JiangIP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04885, N.D. Ill., 07/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendant conducts substantial business in and directs infringing sales to Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Momcozy line of wearable breast pumps infringes three U.S. patents related to compact, hands-free breast milk collection devices designed to be worn inside a brassiere.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable breast pumps that offer users a discreet and hands-free method for expressing and collecting milk, addressing convenience and lifestyle challenges associated with traditional pumping equipment.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Dao Health, founded by the co-inventors of the asserted patents, commercializes the patented technology under the Freemie® brand. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has provided notice to the public by marking its products with the asserted patent numbers.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-10-13	Priority Date for ’915 and ’772 Patents (First Provisional Application)
2009-01-01	Plaintiff’s Freemie® product brought to market (Date inferred from "in 2009")
2009-07-14	’915 Patent Issued
2012-02-21	’772 Patent Issued
2012-08-14	Priority Date for ’646 Patent (Filing Date)
2014-04-22	’646 Patent Issued
2018-01-01	Defendant allegedly begins infringing activities (Date inferred from "since 2018")
2023-07-26	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,559,915 - "Breast Pump Device with Self-Contained Breast Milk Reservoir" (’915 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional breast pumping systems as cumbersome, disruptive, and lacking hands-free operation, often requiring users to undress in a private setting, which presents a significant obstacle to maintaining a consistent pumping schedule ('915 Patent, col. 2:11-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact breast milk collection device designed to fit entirely within a user's existing brassiere. It consists of a funnel-shaped "breast adaptor" that fits over the breast and channels milk into an integrated, self-contained "reservoir," eliminating the need for external bottles and hoses and enabling hands-free use ('915 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:6-12).
• Technical Importance: This integrated, in-bra design was aimed at providing a more discreet and convenient alternative to traditional pumps, allowing users to pump milk while clothed and engaged in other activities ('915 Patent, col. 4:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 and 16 (Compl. ¶34).
• Independent Claim 11 requires:
  • A funnel shaped breast adaptor.
  • A reservoir with an internal volume to receive and store milk.
  • The breast adaptor and reservoir forming a "single unit" adapted to fit within a brassiere.
  • The internal volume adapted to communicate with an external suction source.
• Independent Claim 16 requires:
  • A funnel with a narrow end tapering into a non-collapsible drip tube.
  • A reservoir enclosing the funnel.
  • A "reduced volume" within the reservoir/drip tube, connectable to an external suction source.
  • A valve attached to the distal end of the drip tube to create the reduced volume.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,118,772 - "Breast Pump Device with Self-Contained Breast Milk Reservoir" (’772 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the problem of milk backflow into the vacuum pump and its connecting tubes, which can cause contamination and damage the pump mechanism. It also seeks to create a hands-free system compatible with various external "hospital grade" pumps ('772 Patent, col. 5:59-6:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a valve assembly with a "hollow flexible bladder" that physically isolates the vacuum source from the milk collection path. The bladder contracts under vacuum to create suction on the breast, and expands when vacuum is released. This mechanism prevents expressed milk, particularly aerated milk foam, from entering the vacuum line ('772 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:48-67).
• Technical Importance: By isolating the air path from the milk path, the invention improves hygiene and protects the pump motor, which is a critical consideration for maintaining the function of powerful, reusable pump systems ('772 Patent, col. 6:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1 and 31 (Compl. ¶54).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A breast adaptor with a first receiving end and a second end with an aperture for a nipple.
  • A reservoir coupled with the adaptor to form a single unit, supported by a brassiere.
  • A valve assembly disposed between the adaptor and reservoir, which alternately opens and closes fluid communication.
  • The valve assembly creating a "reduced volume" smaller than the reservoir's volume.
• Dependent Claim 31 further requires:
  • A "second volume" formed in the valve assembly.
  • The valve assembly having an opening between a vacuum source and the second volume.
  • A "hollow flexible bladder" located in the second volume, which contracts when vacuum is applied to its interior, thereby applying vacuum pressure to the second volume.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,702,646 - "Submersible Valve for a Breast Milk Collection Device with Self Contained Reservoir" (’646 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an improved valve system designed to function effectively even when fully submerged in collected milk. The "submersible valve" (e.g., a duckbill valve) is configured to close under the fluid pressure of the collected milk itself, preventing backflow into the breast funnel even when the pump is off. This allows the device to utilize more of the reservoir's volume, increasing collection capacity without increasing the device's overall size ('646 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges all six Momcozy models infringe by incorporating a valve assembly with a valve element that becomes submerged in milk and closes under the force of fluid pressure exerted by the milk (Compl. ¶77). It is also alleged to have a sleeve removably mounted over the drip tube (Compl. ¶78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Momcozy S9 Pro, S12 Pro, S9, S12, M1, and M5 Wearable Breast Pumps (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Products as hands-free, wearable breast milk collection systems designed to be placed and supported within a user's brassiere (Compl. ¶¶18, 24, 29).
• Technically, they are alleged to comprise a funnel-shaped adaptor to receive the breast, a reservoir to collect milk, and a valve assembly to control milk flow and apply vacuum (Compl. ¶¶18, 25). The S9 and S12 series models are specifically alleged to contain a "flexible bladder" within a "rigid bladder housing" to isolate the milk passageway from the vacuum source (Compl. ¶20), while the M1 and M5 models are alleged to use a "flexible barrier (silicone barrier)" for a similar purpose (Compl. ¶¶25, 29).
• The complaint alleges these products have been sold in the U.S. since 2018 through online storefronts like Amazon.com and Defendant's own website (Compl. ¶¶17, 23, 29).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’915 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a funnel shaped breast adaptor, said breast adaptor adapted to receive a woman's breast therein	The Accused Products each include a funnel shaped breast adaptor designed to receive a woman's breast.	¶38	col. 7:6-12
a reservoir, said reservoir having an internal volume, said internal volume adapted to receive and store breast milk	The Accused Products each include a reservoir with an internal volume that receives and stores expressed breast milk.	¶38	col. 7:13-16
said breast adaptor and said reservoir forming a single unit adapted to fit within said woman's brassiere	The Accused Products' adaptors and reservoirs are alleged to form a single unit designed to fit inside a woman's brassiere for support.	¶39	col. 7:36-39
said internal volume adapted to communicate with an external suction source... adapted to cyclically provide suction force	The internal volumes of the Accused Products' reservoirs are adapted to connect to an external suction source that provides cyclical suction.	¶40	col. 7:40-43

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A potential point of dispute may be the term "forming a single unit." The analysis will question whether the detachability of the components in the Accused Products (as described for assembly and cleaning) is consistent with the patent's requirement for a "single unit," or if that term implies a more permanent or integrated construction.
  • Technical Question: The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the devices meet the limitations. A factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the various Accused Products (S9, S12, M1, M5 models) all meet every limitation of claim 11, particularly given the structural differences alleged between them in other parts of the complaint.

’772 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Ind. Claim 1 and Dep. Claim 31)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a valve assembly disposed between and surrounded by the adaptor and the reservoir... alternately opening and closing fluid communication	The Accused Devices are alleged to have a valve assembly between the adaptor and reservoir that alternately opens and closes to control fluid flow.	¶59	col. 15:30-45
a second volume is formed in said valve assembly	The valve assembly of the S9/S12 models allegedly includes a "second volume" defined between a flexible bladder and a rigid housing.	¶20	col. 23:48-51
a hollow flexible bladder located in said second volume... in sealing communication with a source of alternating vacuum pressure	The S9/S12 models allegedly include a "hollow flexible bladder" whose interior communicates with a vacuum source.	¶¶21, 63	col. 23:51-55
said hollow flexible bladder contracting in said second volume when vacuum pressure is applied to the interior of said hollow flexible bladder	The complaint alleges the accused bladder contracts when vacuum is applied to its interior.	¶¶21, 63	col. 23:58-62
said vacuum pressure being applied in said second volume when said bladder contracts	The complaint alleges that the bladder's contraction applies vacuum pressure within the second volume.	¶¶21, 63	col. 23:62-64

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The infringement theory for claim 31 relies on a very specific mechanism of action: the bladder itself contracts in the second volume to create vacuum pressure in that same volume. A central question will be what evidence shows the Accused Products' "flexible bladder" operates in this precise manner, as opposed to simply acting as a passive diaphragm or barrier between the vacuum source and the milk path.
  • Scope Question: Does the term "hollow flexible bladder" as used in the patent, which depicts specific structures, read on the "silicone barrier" described in the accused M1 and M5 models (Compl. ¶25)? The degree of structural and functional equivalence between these components will be a key issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’915 Patent: "forming a single unit"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the required level of integration between the breast adaptor and reservoir. Defendant may argue its products, which are designed to be disassembled for cleaning, do not form a "single unit" in the manner contemplated by the patent, while Plaintiff will likely argue the term covers components that function as one piece when assembled for use.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the components to be "forming" a single unit, which may suggest an assembled state rather than a permanently integrated one ('915 Patent, col. 12:22-23). The specification also describes a detachable embodiment where the adaptor functions as a lid for the reservoir, supporting the idea that "single unit" can include separable parts ('915 Patent, col. 8:3-11).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background criticizes prior art systems as "cumbersome" assemblies ('915 Patent, col. 3:4-7). The summary emphasizes a "compact" and "self-contained" device ('915 Patent, col. 5:6-12). This context could support an interpretation requiring a more cohesive, less modular structure than typical multi-part systems.

Term from the ’772 Patent: "hollow flexible bladder"

• Context and Importance: This is the key inventive element asserted from the '772 Patent. The case's outcome for this patent may depend on whether the accused "flexible bladder" or "silicone barrier" (Compl. ¶¶20, 25) falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges a very specific and complex function for it.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which could support giving it a broad, plain and ordinary meaning that covers any flexible, hollow component that performs the claimed function of isolating the vacuum source and contracting under pressure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the bladder in the context of specific embodiments, such as being located within a "relatively more rigid overflow chamber" and collapsing "in the direction of the vacuum inlet" ('772 Patent, col. 7:62-8:2). Figures 25 and 27 show specific structural arrangements that a court could find limiting ('772 Patent, Figs. 25, 27). Defendant may argue the term is limited to these disclosed structures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents based on Defendant’s continuation of infringing activities "since receiving notice" of each patent (Compl. ¶¶49, 66, 80). The complaint does not specify the date or manner of this notice, suggesting the allegation may be based on the filing of the lawsuit itself or other post-suit conduct. It also alleges constructive notice via marking of Plaintiff's own Freemie® products (Compl. ¶16).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical scope: Can the specific, multi-step functional limitations of the asserted claims, such as the '772 patent's "hollow flexible bladder contracting in said second volume... [to apply] vacuum pressure in said second volume," be read onto the accused Momcozy products? The case will likely involve a deep dive into the precise mechanics of how the competing products operate.
• A second key question will be evidentiary and functional: What evidence will Plaintiff present to prove that the accused products actually perform the functions as claimed? For example, with respect to the '646 patent, does the accused valve close primarily due to the "force of fluid pressure exerted by the milk," as the claim requires, or does it close due to other forces, such as the simple absence of vacuum pressure from the pump?
• Finally, the dispute raises a definitional question regarding the '915 patent: What degree of integration is required for an adaptor and reservoir to be considered a "single unit"? The resolution will determine whether a device designed for routine disassembly can meet this structural limitation.