Defendant
2 cases as defendant.
Truvic Medical, Inc. is a medical device company headquartered in Campbell, California. The company was formed and incorporated in February 2020, originating as an independent development program within Imperative Care, Inc. In July 2021, Imperative Care acquired Truvic in a stock-for-stock transaction, and it now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary. In August 2023, as part of a corporate restructuring, Truvic Medical was renamed and now operates as the "Imperative Care Vascular" business unit.
The company develops and manufactures devices for the treatment of peripheral vascular disease. Its technology focuses on mechanical thrombectomy systems designed to remove blood clots (thrombi) from peripheral blood vessels in a single session without the use of clot-dissolving drugs. Truvic has received FDA 510(k) clearance for its products, including the Prodigy™ Thrombectomy System and the Symphony™ Thrombectomy System.
As an operating company that manufactures and sells medical products, Truvic Medical's litigation profile reflects that of a technology producer defending its products. The company is listed as a defendant in its only tracked patent case and has not been a plaintiff. This suit, Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2024. The case involves allegations of patent infringement related to thrombectomy systems, pitting Truvic and its parent company against a direct competitor in the vascular clot removal market.
Inari asserted claims 5 and 24 of the '333 patent. A preliminary injunction was denied after the court found that Imperative Care raised substantial questions about the patent's validity. The case is stayed pending the outcome of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.
Inari Medical sued Imperative Care and Truvic Medical in the Northern District of California, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,697,011 in the original and first amended complaints; Inari withdrew the '011 patent in its Second Amended Complaint on February 7, 2025. The case is stayed in its entirety pending parallel IPRs, and the court denied Inari's preliminary injunction motion based on the '921 and '910 patents, not the '011 patent.