Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 18 · 522 total
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over its Lapiplasty bunion correction system. The agreement resolves multiple infringement and unfair competition claims.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Treace Medical’s bunion‑correction patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.
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 intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
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 Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Moskowitz Family’s spinal fusion patent, asserting that Palmatier anticipates the invention and that combined references render the remaining claims obvious.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics settled their patent and trademark lawsuit over bunion‑correction technology. The settlement was announced in a press release and filed as an exhibit in the PGR proceeding.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over bunion‑correction patents. The settlement resolves claims of infringement, trademark, and copyright disputes.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace Medical Concepts' 12,268,428 bunion‑correction patent, alleging that all 30 claims are anticipated or obvious over well‑known surgical textbooks and prior‑art patents. The petition lists ten grounds covering §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace's bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior‑art guides and textbooks.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep‑disordered breathing, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art neurostimulator references (Durand/Hoegh and Headley/Tran). The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical's U.S. Pat. 10,898,709, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over earlier neurostimulation disclosures such as Durand, Hoegh, Headley and Tran. The petition seeks institution of review and cancellation of the claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves for aspiration catheters after finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care challenged Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and instituted inter partes review on all 18 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 catheter aspiration patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The review covers all 15 claims and four obviousness grounds involving Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent after finding Imperative Care likely to succeed on at least one claim, focusing on obviousness over Garrison, Laub, and Aklog references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has 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.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.