Executive 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.
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.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsPortsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems' attempt to overturn the denial of IPR institution against Portsmouth Network Corporation was rejected by the Delegated Review Panel. The DRP upheld the Board's implicit claim construction, finding that the claims covered all network nodes, not just downstream ones.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al.vsSung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
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.