Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

IPR2026-00215

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00215
Judge(s)
Jeffrey N. Fredman, Eric C. Jeschke, Timothy G. Majors
Decision Date
16 January 2026

Detailed Summary

In a Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Imperative Care, Inc. has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent No. 11,554,005 B2, which claims a vacuum aspiration system with a hemostasis valve. The Board examined four statutory grounds, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on prior‑art references Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. A key dispute involved the term “filament,” where the petitioner defined it broadly, the patent owner emphasized flexibility, and the Board declined to limit the term for claim 1 while requiring flexibility for claim 10. Consequently, the IPR was instituted on all challenged claims, setting the stage for a full trial on 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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call