Medical Devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
112 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 112 total
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01042, allowing Solventum Corporation to challenge Wound Healing Technologies Corp.'s patent 10639404 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
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.
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.
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.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner asserts that the challenged dental imaging claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Sommer, Rubbert, Malfliet, and Estépar. The petition details how specific elements related to bite registration methods merely aggregate known technologies from these sources.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
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).
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.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Petitioner Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenges DexCom's '031 patent claims 23-46 in an IPR proceeding. The challenge asserts that the core inventive feature—using a priori information regarding sensor drift profiles—is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Zhang and Shin.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
smaXtec Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge a key patent held by ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC at the PTAB. The petition asserts seven grounds of invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
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.