Untitled case

The case 5:24-cv-03117 in the California Northern District Court involves a patent infringement dispute between Inari Medical, Inc. ("Inari") and Imperative Care, Inc. ("Imperative Care"), both operating companies in the medical device industry. Inari, the plaintiff, is a medical device manufacturer specializing in devices used to remove blood clots from patients' veins. Imperative Care, the defendant, is a competing seller of similar thrombectomy devices.

The asserted patent, US Patent 12,016,580, pertains to methods and systems related to medical devices, specifically mechanical thrombectomy systems used to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE), which involves blood clots in veins. This patent is part of a broader suite of patents that Inari asserts against Imperative Care concerning their competing devices, such as Imperative Care's "Symphony system." A key technical aspect of these patents, and likely the '580 patent as well, involves components and methods for clot removal from vasculature.

The case is proceeding in the San Jose Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Eumi K. Lee, with Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen also involved in discovery matters. The venue is significant as the Northern District of California is a prominent hub for technology and life sciences litigation. The litigation is currently stayed pending decisions from several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the asserted patents. This IPR linkage is a notable aspect, as PTAB proceedings often run parallel to district court cases, influencing their progression. In fact, an institution decision for an IPR related to US Patent 12,016,580 was issued on January 16, 2026. The court previously denied Inari's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing, among other reasons, that the harm suffered by Inari would be monetary and that Imperative Care raised substantial questions of obviousness or anticipation regarding the asserted patents, thus limiting the public interest in enforcing potentially invalid patents. This case highlights the competitive landscape in the medical device industry, particularly for thrombectomy technologies, and the strategic use of both district court litigation and PTAB challenges in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., et al. (5:24-cv-03117)

This patent infringement case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, involves medical devices used to remove blood clots from veins. The litigation, initiated by Inari Medical, Inc. against Imperative Care, Inc., et al., is currently stayed pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Inari Medical, Inc. filed its initial complaint on May 22, 2024, asserting infringement of eight patents.
• First Amended Complaint: On July 9, 2024, Inari filed a first amended complaint, adding U.S. Patent No. 12,016,580 (the '580 patent) to the asserted patents.
• Second Amended Complaint: A second amended complaint was filed on February 7, 2025, adding two more patents and withdrawing claims for one of the original patents.
• Third Amended Complaint: On May 29, 2025, Inari filed a third amended complaint, asserting infringement of an additional newly-issued patent, bringing the total to eleven patents and approximately 200 claims.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Inari Medical sought a preliminary injunction to stop Imperative Care from making, using, and selling its devices. This motion was denied by the court on September 29, 2025, with the court finding that Inari was not likely to suffer irreparable harm and could be adequately compensated through a damages award.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR Decisions: Imperative Care, Inc. filed a motion to stay the case in its entirety pending the completion of IPR proceedings before the PTAB. The court granted this motion in part on September 29, 2025, finding that a stay was favored due to the early stage of the case and the potential for IPRs to simplify the litigation. The stay was subsequently continued via a joint stipulation on January 21, 2026, with a further case management conference scheduled for May 6, 2026 (or a date convenient for the Court).

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of September 29, 2025, the court had not issued a claim construction order. The parties had not yet briefed claim construction due to Inari's amendments to its complaint.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• A joint letter brief concerning a plaintiff's motion to compel production of materials relating to the defendant's blood return system was filed on March 14, 2025. This indicates ongoing discovery disputes during the earlier stages of the litigation, before the stay was fully in place.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• No trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred as the case is currently stayed.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently stayed, and no final disposition by settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Imperative Care has filed at least ten IPR petitions challenging the patents asserted by Inari. The district court explicitly acknowledged these ongoing IPR proceedings as a reason for granting the stay, noting their potential to simplify the case. The stay is contingent upon the outcome of these IPR decisions, and the parties are required to provide updates on the status of all pending IPR proceedings. For instance, IPR2025-01264 and IPR2025-00289 are mentioned in connection with filings related to the district court case. The '580 patent is among those being challenged in IPRs. The PTAB conducts trials and hears appeals related to patent applications and reexamination proceedings.

The plaintiff in the patent infringement case 5:24-cv-03117, Inari Medical, Inc. has the following counsel of record:

• Ramsey M. Al-Salam

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Al-Salam is a partner at Perkins Coie and focuses on intellectual property and patent litigation. His practice often involves complex technology cases.

• Amanda Tessar

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, Colorado
  • Relevant experience: Ms. Tessar is a partner at Perkins Coie and a patent litigator with experience across various industries, including medical devices.

Additional counsel for Plaintiff Inari Medical, Inc. may be listed on the full signature page of the referenced document (ECF No. 139), but the provided search snippets only explicitly named these two attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP.

In the patent infringement case 5:24-cv-03117, defendant Imperative Care, Inc. is represented by attorneys from the law firms Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP.

Here is the counsel of record representing Imperative Care, Inc.:

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Jeffrey T. Thomas - Lead Counsel.

  • Office Location: Orange County, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Thomas is a partner in Gibson Dunn's Litigation Department and IP and Antitrust and Competition Practice Groups. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has successfully handled numerous significant intellectual property and complex business cases, including patent and trade secret litigation. He was lead trial counsel for Hewlett-Packard Co. in a significant matter against Oracle Corp., resulting in a complete victory for HP. He has been recognized by the Daily Journal as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California and one of the top 75 intellectual property litigators.

• Sarah S. Chang - Counsel.

  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA. (Information regarding specific office location for Sarah S. Chang at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was not explicitly found, but Gibson Dunn has a San Francisco office that often handles Northern District of California cases.)
  • Experience: Details about Sarah S. Chang's specific patent litigation experience were not readily available in the search results, as several prominent individuals named Sarah Chang appeared in the search.

• Kyle K. Drake - Counsel.

  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
  • Office Location: Unspecified.
  • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Kyle K. Drake was not found in the search results, as the name yielded multiple individuals with different professions.

• Daniel S. Brown - Counsel.

  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Daniel S. Brown was not found in the search results, as the name yielded multiple individuals with different professions and academic roles.

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP

• Joshua J. Stowell - Counsel.
  • Office Location: Irvine, CA.
  • Experience: Joshua Stowell is listed as counsel for Imperative Care, Inc. in related IPR proceedings, indicating experience in patent litigation and PTAB challenges.
• Joseph R. Re - Counsel.
  • Office Location: Irvine, CA.
  • Experience: Joseph Re is listed as counsel for Imperative Care, Inc. in related IPR proceedings, indicating experience in patent litigation and PTAB challenges.
• Brian C. Barnes - Counsel.
  • Office Location: Irvine, CA.
  • Experience: Brian Barnes is listed as counsel for Imperative Care, Inc. in related IPR proceedings, indicating experience in patent litigation and PTAB challenges.

Another attorney, Ryan K. Walsh, from Jones Day, also appears to have experience in medical device patent litigation and could potentially be involved, although a direct link to this specific case for Imperative Care was not explicitly found in the provided search results.