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
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,965,434. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsTempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
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.