Short Summary
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s ’910 clot‑removal patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition filed on May 20, 2025, Imperative Care, Inc. seeks inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,910 owned by Inari Medical, Inc. The challenger contends that claims 1‑8, 11‑15, and 18‑20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they are obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references, primarily Garrison together with Laub, Aklog, Hartley, and Pasha. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, citing extensive expert declarations and prior‑art publications. No secondary considerations are offered, and the petitioner stipulates that, if the Board institutes the IPR, it will not pursue overlapping issues in the parallel district‑court litigation. The petition is accompanied by numerous exhibits, including expert declarations, prior‑art patents, and related court filings.
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
Apple Inc.vsHBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.
Google LLCvsDH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Apple Inc.vsMessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
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.