Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 18 · 522 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical's 11,969,333 B2 patent covering intravascular clot removal. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Laub, Garrison, and related references, and instituted review on all 36 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v.Kurin, Inc.
Magnolia Medical Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Kurin’s blood‑sample optimization device, asserting that the Bullington800 publication (alone and combined with Brancazio and Liu) anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology regarding dental treatment planning technology. The PTAB ruled that the claimed obviousness over prior art was not demonstrated, upholding the validity of the patent claims.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The request hinges on alleged inconsistent claim‑construction positions and procedural violations.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on §§ 102 and 103 and requests that the PTAB institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB held that WHOOP proved 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims were left intact.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB, on remand, affirmed that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and upheld the claim construction of “identify an object.”
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of the ’755 spinal implant patent, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Schäfer, Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby. The petition contends the patent owner concealed key references during prosecution.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review Request, asserting that the new RPI arguments are untimely and that the Director’s discretionary denial was proper.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
HydraFacial and Eunsung Global settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial's hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing errors in Fintiv factor analysis and emphasizing efficiency. The Board had denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 15‑29 of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’333 patent covering networked CPAP therapy. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references Toge, Kumar, Norman and Burton. No secondary considerations are offered and the Board is asked to institute the review.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of HydraFacial's microdermabrasion console patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner never considered the cited combinations and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’029 PAP‑therapy patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art PAP devices and telemedicine systems.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices regarding a patent covering sleep disorder treatment/CPAP systems. The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 1-3, which centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under §112.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑measurement patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, modulation, and AI‑driven analysis.
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.