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
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al.vsHippocratic AI, Inc.
OSSI has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Hippocratic AI’s 12,142,371 patent, alleging obviousness, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, and abstract‑idea ineligibility.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
FedEx Corporation et al.vsVALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
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.