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
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to stay court deadlines while they finalize the agreement.
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.