Short Summary
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Detailed Summary
Imperative Care, Inc. challenged Inari Medical, Inc.'s patent (11744691) before the PTAB based on grounds of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner focused on claims related to aspiration systems for intravascular treatment, arguing that prior art references like Garrison disclosed similar technology. However, the Board ultimately denied institution because the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Specifically, the Board noted that while the petitioner argued Garrison met claim limitations, it did not disclose the required negative pressure in the first chamber, and other cited art could not satisfy this critical limitation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Imperative Care, Inc. vs Inari Medical, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsMultifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.
SNAP INC.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.vsDainese S.p.A.
This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsTempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.