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
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsWSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
FormFactor, Inc.vsTechnoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
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.