Short Summary
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
Detailed Summary
In this final written decision, the PTAB ruled against Petitioner Penumbra, Inc., sustaining the validity of claims 1-20 of the '402 patent held by RapidPulse, Inc. The central dispute involved claim construction of the term 'predetermined cycle.' While Petitioner argued for a flexible, sensor-based timing sequence, the Board adopted an intrinsic definition requiring fixed or predetermined timing. Consequently, the Board found that combining prior art references (Yang and Mullins) did not render the claims obvious because Mullins's reliance on sensor feedback contradicted the required fixed nature of the 'predetermined cycle.'
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Penumbra, Inc. vs RapidPulse, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Intel Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that cancelled 14 claims of its payment‑tokenization patent. The owner contends the Board introduced an unraised obviousness theory, violating procedural rules and the APA. The request asks the Director to reverse the cancellations and confirm the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's 9,299,730 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc.vsSkysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,313,385. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent resulted in all challenged claims being held unpatentable. The Board found the claims obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
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.