Short Summary
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
Detailed Summary
In a Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00728), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Imperative Care, Inc. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of its asserted grounds of unpatentability against Inari Medical, Inc.’s ‘921 patent covering hemostasis valves for minimally invasive surgery. The petition challenges claims 1‑7, 9, 10, 15‑18, and 20‑24 under §§102 and 103, relying on prior art references Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. A central dispute concerns the claim term “filament,” with the Board leaning toward the Patent Owner’s view that the term implies a flexible element. Finding the petition sufficiently supported, the Board instituted review on all 18 challenged claims, setting the stage for a full trial on obviousness and anticipation issues.
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. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al.vsForas Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Infineon against MOSAID regarding patent 9,972,381 B1, setting the stage for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Apple Inc.vsMessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
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.