Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 18 · 522 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
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. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent covering a catheter‑based aspiration system with a hemostasis valve, alleging obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks a Director’s discretionary denial of Abbott’s institution of IPR2025‑00116, arguing the petition lacks particularity, misuses claim constructions, and violates word‑count rules. The Board had previously granted institution of the IPR.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The USPTO denied Abbott Laboratories’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, leaving Miracor Medical’s patent 11,572,879 in place.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00116, arguing the Board’s findings were proper and the Fintiv factors inapplicable.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision, arguing the Board already resolved all substantive issues and that new Fintiv arguments are barred.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's VAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over multiple prior art references.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.
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.