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
Vectair Systems Inc.vsFresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc.'s IPR challenge against Fresh Products, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102) or obviousness (103).
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, relying on Eagle and Mgrdechian prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd.vsShenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
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.