US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison references.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all challenged claims.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

patent denied · Sep 19, 2025

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent covering clot‑removal systems. Imperative Care successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple claims, prompting full‑scale review.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and the applicability of Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted inter partes review on all fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent, finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments against the hemostasis valve features sufficiently plausible.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01557

BOE and Samsung have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, seeking to store it separately from the patent file and limit access.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose and IngenioSpec have entered a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,829,518, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01463

Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01557

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01557) before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claims were instituted or decided.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01463

Harbor Freight, Generac, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file for Champion's dual‑fuel generator patent.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01463

Harbor Freight and Champion Power have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,840,970 covering a dual‑fuel generator. The parties filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals

· PGR2025-00086

Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.