Short Summary
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
Detailed Summary
In a Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Imperative Care, Inc. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim of Inari Medical, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 11,865,291 B2, which covers hemostasis valves for minimally invasive vascular procedures. The petition centered on whether the term “filament” in the claims requires flexibility, with the petitioner arguing a broad definition that includes rigid structures, while the patent owner insisted on a flexible interpretation. The Board adopted the flexible view, concluded that the petitioner met the institution threshold—particularly on the combination of Schaffer with Hartley or Eller—and instituted the IPR on all 16 challenged claims, leaving the substantive unpatentability determination for later trial stages.
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
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution challenges Molecular Rebar Design's patent on lithium-ion battery composites, arguing the technology is obvious based on prior art combinations of carbon nanotubes.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.vsSkyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
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.