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

IPR2025-00989

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00989
Judge(s)
Jeffrey N. Fredman, Eric C. Jeschke, Timothy G. Majors
Decision Date
5 September 2025

Detailed Summary

In a Decision Granting Institution of IPR2025-00728, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Imperative Care, Inc. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of its challenged claims of Inari Medical’s ‘921 patent covering hemostasis valves for minimally invasive surgery. The petition challenges claims 1‑7, 9, 10, 15‑18, and 20‑24 under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) grounds, relying on prior art references Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. A key claim‑construction dispute involves the term “filament,” with the petitioner arguing a broad, non‑flexible definition and the patent owner insisting on a flexible interpretation; the Board’s preliminary view aligns with the owner. The institution order authorizes trial on all 18 challenged claims, setting the stage for further evidentiary development on the obviousness and claim‑construction issues.

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. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

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 →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call