US PTAB IP Litigation

patent denied · May 19, 2025

In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.

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

The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.

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

Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.

patent · May 19, 2025

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

Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.

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

patent denied · May 18, 2025

Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00720

OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.

patent · May 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00720

OnePlus Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its 4G/5G uplink synchronization patent. The petition argues the “settled expectations” rule was misapplied and that material examiner error and the breadth of related patents merit Board review.

patent denied · May 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00720

The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.

patent · May 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00756

OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.

patent instituted · May 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00756

The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · May 16, 2025

Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision in IPR2025‑00951, citing claim‑construction issues. The petition was filed by Generac and co‑petitioners against Champion Power’s generator patent.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.