Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 18 · 522 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC affirmed the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that extraordinary circumstances exist.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Jeisys Medical Inc. after the parties settled their dispute. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential, and the proceeding remains open only for EndyMed petitioners.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda's participation in an IPR over a dermatology device patent, citing a settlement that resolves the dispute.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before any substantive briefing or hearing.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia and Jeisys Medical settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have settled their dispute over a dermatology‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate Ilooda’s participation in the pending IPR, requesting the settlement remain confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical settled with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents during its IPR against Serendia, leading to a motion to suspend the schedule.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR only for Jeisys Medical Inc. after a settlement with Serendia, while EndyMed remains as a petitioner. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc.'s IPR challenge against Serendia, LLC's '836 patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board determined that the Petitioner's grounds of obviousness over prior art like Ganz were plausible and warranted further proceedings. This decision moves the dispute toward a trial phase in the medical device technology space.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Serendia's '536 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board determined that prior art (Mehta) discloses the claimed depth control feature despite arguments for fixed-length needles.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,836 related to skin treatment/radiofrequency ablation. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, Lee).
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical defends U.S. Patent 10,736,688 against Avanos Medical’s IPR petition, arguing that the challenges are based on vague, non‑enabling prior art and lack obviousness. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical defends its RF neurotomy patent against Avanos Medical’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art is non‑analogous, vague, and non‑enabling, and highlighting commercial success and industry praise as evidence of non‑obviousness.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response contends that Avanos’s IPR challenges are legally and technically deficient, emphasizing lack of enablement, teaching away, and strong objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
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.