Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 18 · 522 total
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera's IPR challenge against Sun Pharmaceutical regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Lundahl and Larsen, focusing on combining prior art elements for flexible device design.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR for patent 7,912,257. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, and the parties seek dismissal to preserve resources.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,912,257, leading the PTAB to dismiss the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,191,648 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,191,648 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim and ordered the trial to proceed.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 catheter‑hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references. The petition argues the preamble term “aspiration” is non‑limiting and requests the Board to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The Board found that the claims were obvious over prior art references by combining known features to achieve a predictable result. Despite initial disputes over claim construction, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation for combining specific prior art elements.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care, Inc. filed an IPR challenging INARI MEDICAL, INC.'s patent on Intravascular Catheter Valves. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Schaffer or rendered obvious through combinations of Hartley and Eller.
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.