Short Summary
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.
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.
Related Cases
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLCvsDigital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability for a movie‑distribution method, arguing the Board relied on an improper combination of prior art. The petition seeks Director review of the decision.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated Bluetooth communications, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
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.