Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 3:24-cv-03117, is currently active in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff is Inari Medical Inc., and the defendant is Imperative Care Inc. Both are operating companies specializing in medical devices, particularly those for treating embolism and related cardiovascular conditions.

The accused products or technologies are related to systems and devices for treating embolism. The primary patent at issue, as specified, is US Patent No. 11,697,012. Other related patents mentioned in association with this case include US 11,744,691 B2, which broadly covers "System for treating embolism and associated devices and methods." A technical sketch of US Patent No. 11,697,012, generally relates to a system for treating embolism.

The case is being heard in the Northern District of California. While a specific judge was not immediately identifiable in the initial search results, docket entries suggest the involvement of "EKL". The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its specialized local patent rules and experienced judiciary, often attracting cases involving technology and life sciences companies based in the region. The case is notable for the defendant, Imperative Care Inc., having filed an inter partes review (IPR2024-01257) against Inari Medical Inc.'s patent(s), which was ultimately denied institution on February 7, 2025. Despite being filed in 2024, the district court litigation appears to be in its early stages, with the court granting leave to amend infringement contentions in July 2025, noting that no depositions had been taken and no claim construction had occurred.

The case "Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc.," Case No. 3:24-cv-03117, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 22, 2024. The assigned judge is likely District Judge Edward K. Lee. Plaintiff Inari Medical, Inc. initiated the lawsuit, initially asserting twelve patents, later narrowing it to eleven. Among the asserted patents is U.S. Patent No. 11,697,012. The defendant, Imperative Care, Inc., is also represented by attorneys from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: Inari Medical, Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement on May 22, 2024. Specific dates for Imperative Care's answer and any counterclaims are not explicitly available in the provided search results. However, the presence of various motions indicates that initial pleadings have been exchanged and the case is actively litigated.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Denied): Inari Medical filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Imperative Care from selling its thrombectomy devices in the United States. This motion was denied by the District Court on September 29, 2025. The court found that Inari had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, noting that Imperative Care had raised serious questions regarding the validity of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,844,921 and 11,974,910, among others). The court also found Inari failed to demonstrate irreparable harm connected to the alleged infringement.
  • Motion to Stay (Granted): On September 29, 2025, the court granted in part Imperative Care's motion to stay the district court action (ECF No. 137). The case was initially stayed in its entirety until February 4, 2026. The stay has since been extended, with the court ordering a joint case management statement by April 29, 2026, to update on the status of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and consider further extensions. A further case management conference was scheduled for May 6, 2026.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Due to the active stay of the litigation pending IPR proceedings, no claim construction (Markman) hearing or order has been reported for this case.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • While specific discovery milestones are not detailed, court documents from an IPR proceeding indicate that Inari Medical was granted leave to add new accused products approximately 13 months into the district court litigation, suggesting an evolving scope of infringement contentions before the stay was implemented.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions given its currently stayed status.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case is currently active and largely stayed pending the IPR outcomes. There has been no final judgment, dismissal of the primary infringement claims, or appeal of the merits of the case. The denial of the preliminary injunction was a significant interim ruling.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

  • Imperative Care has initiated multiple IPR petitions challenging the validity of patents asserted by Inari Medical.
  • Instituted IPRs: Eight IPRs have been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against several of the currently asserted patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,697,012, 11,554,005, 11,844,921, 11,865,291, 11,969,333, 11,974,910, and 12,016,580.
    • Specifically, IPR2025-00289 was filed by Imperative Care, Inc. against Inari Medical Inc. for U.S. Patent No. 11,554,005 on July 15, 2025.
  • Denied Institution: IPR2024-01257, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,744,691 B2, was denied institution on February 7, 2025.
  • Pending Institution Decisions: Decisions are pending for three other IPRs covering U.S. Patent Nos. 12,109,384, 12,156,669, and 12,239,333.
  • The existence of these parallel IPRs was a primary reason for the district court's decision to stay the litigation, aiming to conserve judicial resources and allow the PTAB to first address the validity challenges. PTAB proceedings offer a faster and potentially less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity based on prior art. Final written decisions from the PTAB on patentability can have an estoppel effect on subsequent district court litigation.

This litigation remains active, with its progression heavily reliant on the outcomes of the ongoing IPR proceedings before the PTAB.

In the patent infringement case Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc. (Case No. 3:24-cv-03117) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiff, Inari Medical, Inc., is represented by counsel from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff are:

• Joseph R. Re

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Orange County (Irvine, CA)
  • Note on experience: Mr. Re is a nationally recognized trial attorney with over 35 years of experience, particularly in high-stakes medical device cases. He has secured multiple nine-figure jury verdicts, including a $466 million verdict for Masimo against Philips for patent infringement and a $382 million verdict against Medtronic for antitrust violations.

• Joshua J. Stowell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Orange County (Irvine, CA) He is also co-chair of Knobbe Martens' Medical Device Litigation practice.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Stowell is a nationally recognized attorney focusing on patent litigation and arbitration, particularly in medical device technologies such as cardiovascular and vascular devices, spinal treatments, and patient monitors. He has represented clients in district courts, before the PTAB, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Nicholas A. Belair

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP (specific office location not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but likely Orange County given the firm's main IP presence there and other attorneys' locations)
  • Note on experience: Mr. Belair is an experienced intellectual property litigator, primarily focusing on patent litigation in various technology areas, including medical devices, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals. He also has significant experience in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR).

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record representing defendant Imperative Care Inc. in Inari Medical Inc v. Imperative Care Inc, case 3:24-cv-03117 in the California Northern District Court. These attorneys are all associated with Knobbe Martens, and their representation of Imperative Care Inc. is confirmed through appearances in a related Federal Circuit appeal (26-1552) stemming from the same district court action.

• Joseph R. Re

  • Role: Partner (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens, Orange County, California (Irvine office)
  • Note on experience: A nationally recognized trial attorney, Mr. Re has extensive experience in high-stakes medical device patent litigation, securing numerous nine-figure jury verdicts for clients. He has also served as President of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the Federal Circuit Bar Association.

• Joshua J. Stowell

  • Role: Partner (likely lead counsel or key counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens, Orange County, California (Irvine office)
  • Note on experience: Mr. Stowell co-chairs Knobbe Martens' Medical Device Litigation practice and has broad experience in patent litigation across U.S. federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has successfully represented innovators in stopping infringement and defendants in invalidating asserted intellectual property.

• Brian C. Barnes

  • Role: Partner (likely key counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens, Irvine, California
  • Note on experience: Mr. Barnes focuses on strategic patent litigation in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. His experience includes cases in federal district courts, the Federal Circuit (where he previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Todd M. Hughes), and the PTAB.

• Nicholas A. Belair

  • Role: Attorney (likely key counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens, San Francisco, California
  • Note on experience: Mr. Belair is an experienced intellectual property litigator, primarily focusing on patent litigation across various technology areas. He represents clients in district courts nationwide, as well as before the PTAB.