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
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
i4F Licensing NVvsVILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
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.