Short Summary
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
Detailed Summary
In a decision dated October 10, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’921 patent covering hemostasis valves for minimally invasive surgery. The petitioner challenged claims 1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, and 20‑24 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness, relying on prior art references Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. A key dispute centered on the claim term “filament,” with the petitioner advocating a broad definition and the patent owner insisting on a flexible interpretation. The Board concluded that Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim and therefore instituted review on all challenged claims, setting the stage for a full trial.
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
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.vsNatera, Inc.
The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.
Albany International Corp.vsVoith Patent GmbH
Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Wiz, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.
Petitioner Wiz challenges Orca Security Ltd.'s patent claims regarding cloud asset security and snapshot analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103. Wiz argues that the claimed methods for threat detection, risk prioritization, and reporting are obvious combinations of existing prior art.
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
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.