Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 18 · 522 total
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’533 wearable physiological measurement patent were unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent failed; all asserted claims were found obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB found that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 27 claims of Omni MedSci’s ’304 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed the construction of “identify an object” and held that all 23 claims of WHOOP’s wearable health‑monitoring patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB remand decision held that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximetry patent are unpatentable, applying 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved the obviousness of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all 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 finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent covering clot‑removal systems. Imperative Care successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple claims, prompting full‑scale review.
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 finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and the applicability of Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review on all fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent, finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments against the hemostasis valve features sufficiently plausible.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering a hemostasis valve. The petitioner alleges obviousness over prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Hermann and seeks institution of the review.
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 they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
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. All 15 claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.
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.