Short Summary
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
Detailed Summary
In an inter partes review decision dated January 23, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent No. 11,697,011 covering hemostasis valves for minimally invasive surgery. The petitioner asserted five grounds of unpatentability, invoking 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, relying on prior art references Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board concluded that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly on anticipation of claim 1 by Schaffer, and therefore instituted the trial on all nine challenged claims. No claim constructions were finalized, and the matter proceeds to 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. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.vsNorth Atlantic Imports, LLC
The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
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.