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

IPR2026-00169

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00169
Judge(s)
Jeffrey N. Fredman, Eric C. Jeschke, Timothy G. Majors
Decision Date
16 December 2025

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

patentIPR2024-00559

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya LLC

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.

patentIPR2026-00118

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.

patentIPR2026-00253

Apple Inc.vsIngenioSpec, LLC

Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.

patentIPR2026-00079

Meta Platforms, LLCvsWeple IP Holdings LLC et al.

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Weple IP's 12,112,357 patent covering mobile streaming media. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma references and seeks institution of the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01278

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2015 video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art combinations involving Phek, Martins, He, and Sakazume. The petition argues the examiner never considered these combinations, seeking institution of the review.

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