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
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.
Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC
Nike filed a PTAB petition challenging the validity of SherryWear's bra pocket system claims, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Barg and Pintor. The petitioner argues that these combinations render the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).
USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in a Board‑ordered termination of IPR2025-00752 covering patent 10,044,689.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLCvsFacet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Facet Technology’s ’255 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.