Industry Sector

Medical Devices — US PTAB Patent Cases

112 decisions indexed

Page 3 of 4 · 112 total

patent instituted

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.

patent instituted

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.

· IPR2024-01296

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.

patent instituted

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2024-01312

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.

patent denied

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01491

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.

patent denied

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00096

Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00112

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.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00113

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.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00114

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.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00116

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.

patent instituted

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

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.'

patent instituted

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.

patent denied

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00156

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.

patent instituted

Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.

· IPR2025-00225

Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.

patent instituted

Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.

· IPR2025-00226

Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.

patent instituted

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00247

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).

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

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.

patent denied

LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.

· IPR2025-00454

LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.

patent instituted

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.

· IPR2025-00554

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.

patent instituted

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00560

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.

patent denied

SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger

· IPR2025-00773

The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.

patent denied

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00814

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.

patent instituted

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00816

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.

patent instituted

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00818

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.

patent instituted

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00821

ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00989

Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01021

Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →