Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc.

Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc. is a patent infringement lawsuit between two medical technology companies specializing in treatments for thromboembolic diseases. Plaintiff Inari Medical, Inc. is an operating company focused on developing devices for venous diseases, particularly venous thromboembolism (VTE), with key products like the ClotTriever and FlowTriever systems designed for mechanical thrombectomy. Defendant Imperative Care, Inc. is also a commercial-stage medical technology company that develops and manufactures solutions for patients suffering from thromboembolic disease, including stroke and other vascular conditions, offering both stroke and vascular product portfolios.

The case revolves around U.S. Patent 11,974,910, which Inari Medical lists among its patents covering its FlowTriever system. While a detailed technical sketch of the patent itself requires access to the full patent document, the FlowTriever system generally consists of catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy devices designed to remove large clots from large vessels, particularly for pulmonary embolism (PE) treatment. Imperative Care is accused of infringing this patent, though the specific accused product(s) or technology are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond the general context of both companies operating in the thrombectomy space. However, 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 that the initial infringement contentions may have been broad or evolved.

The litigation is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-03117. While a specific judge was not identified in the initial search for the district court case, an IPR filing related to Imperative Care v. Inari Medical (IPR2024-01257) mentions the district court case number and lists "EKL" which likely refers to District Judge Edward K. Lee. The Northern District of California is known for its experienced bench in complex litigation and its willingness to address early dispositive motions, such as Alice motions challenging patent eligibility, and motions to stay cases pending inter partes review (IPR) at the USPTO. It is generally considered a favorable venue for patent defendants due to these factors and its detailed local patent rules. The case is notable as it involves two active medical device companies in the competitive field of thrombectomy, and there are parallel IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2024-01257, IPR2025-01264) initiated by Imperative Care against Inari Medical, indicating a broader dispute over patent validity and potential market impact within the medical device industry. The denial of a preliminary injunction for Inari Medical further shapes the procedural posture of this active dispute.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc.

The patent infringement lawsuit, 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 case remains active, with proceedings largely stayed pending the outcome of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Inari Medical, Inc. initiated the lawsuit, initially asserting twelve patents against Imperative Care, Inc.. Inari later withdrew infringement claims for one patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,697,011 (the '011 Patent), leaving eleven patents currently asserted against Imperative Care. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 11,697,012; 11,744,691; 11,554,005; 11,844,921; 11,865,291; 11,969,333; 11,974,910; 12,016,580; 12,109,384; 12,156,669; and 12,239,333. The specific details of Imperative Care's answer and any counterclaims are not immediately available in the provided search results.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Denied): Inari Medical filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to halt Imperative Care's sales of its thrombectomy devices in the United States. The District Court denied this motion on September 29, 2025. The court found that Inari failed to establish 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). The court also determined that Inari had not demonstrated irreparable harm with a nexus to the alleged infringement.
• Motion to Stay (Granted): On September 29, 2025, the court issued an order granting 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, with a case management conference set for January 28, 2026. The stay has since been extended, with the court ordering the parties to file a joint case management statement by April 29, 2026, to update on the status of IPRs and address whether the stay should be further extended. A further case management conference was scheduled for May 6, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
Given the ongoing stay of the district court proceedings pending the resolution of IPRs, the case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones:
Due to the comprehensive stay of the litigation, no significant discovery milestones have been reported.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
The case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case is currently active and stayed. There has been no final judgment, dismissal, or appeal of the primary infringement claims. The denial of the preliminary injunction, however, was a significant interim ruling.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Imperative Care has filed numerous IPR petitions challenging the validity of the patents asserted by Inari Medical in the district court action, including the initially asserted twelve patents.

• IPR2024-01257: Filed on August 12, 2024, by Imperative Care Inc. against Inari Medical Inc., challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,744,691 B2. Institution of this IPR was denied on February 7, 2025.
• Instituted IPRs: The PTAB has instituted eight IPRs against patents currently asserted in the district court, specifically for 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, as well as the withdrawn '011 Patent.
• 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.
• Final Written Decision: On January 16, 2026, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision for the withdrawn '011 Patent, finding all claims (Claims 1-9) unpatentable. This decision effectively invalidates the claims of a patent previously asserted in the lawsuit.

The ongoing IPR proceedings are a critical factor in the district court litigation, as reflected by the court's decision to stay the case pending their resolution. The outcome of these PTAB challenges will likely have a significant impact on the future trajectory of the infringement suit.

In the patent infringement case of Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., the plaintiff, Inari Medical, Inc., is represented by attorneys from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP

• Joseph R. Re
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm Office: Irvine, CA
  • Experience: Joseph R. Re is a named attorney representing Inari Medical, Inc. in this district court case and in related IPR proceedings. He is also listed as counsel for Imperative Care in some IPR filings, which may be a clerical error or indicate a complex relationship between the firms involved in various parallel litigations.
• Joshua J. Stowell
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm Office: Irvine, CA
  • Experience: Joshua J. Stowell is also listed as counsel for Inari Medical, Inc. in the district court and as representing Imperative Care, Inc. in related IPRs. This dual listing may reflect an error in the search results or the complex nature of the various IPR and district court cases between these parties.
• Nicholas A. Belair
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Experience: Nicholas A. Belair is listed as counsel for Inari Medical, Inc. in the district court case.

Perkins Coie LLP

• Ramsey M. Al-Salam
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm Office: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but Perkins Coie has multiple offices.
  • Experience: Ramsey M. Al-Salam is noted as counsel for Inari Medical, Inc. in filings related to the preliminary injunction and initial case management.

It's worth noting the repeated appearance of Joseph R. Re and Joshua J. Stowell as counsel for both plaintiff Inari Medical and defendant Imperative Care across the district court case and various IPR proceedings. This could indicate an error in the search results, a situation where attorneys from the same firm represent different parties in parallel proceedings, or that the search results are conflating filings from different related cases where the roles of "Petitioner" and "Patent Owner" in IPRs might be misattributed in some summaries. Based on Document 94 (March 14, 2025) of the district court case (3:24-cv-03117-EKL), Joseph R. Re, Joshua J. Stowell, and Nicholas A. Belair of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP are explicitly listed as "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INARI MEDICAL, INC.". The same document lists Knobbe Martens attorneys as "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT IMPERATIVE CARE, INC." which is a direct contradiction. This suggests a potential mislabeling in the source document or an ongoing dispute regarding counsel representation. For the purpose of this analysis, the explicit labeling in Document 94 from the district court for Inari Medical will be prioritized. Additionally, Ramsey M. Al-Salam of Perkins Coie LLP is also identified as representing Inari Medical in the district court filings.

I'll research Imperative Care's counsel of record in this matter.

I found the key docket references. Let me pull the full docket and confirm the complete defense team.

The docket reveals an important detail — there are two defendants. Let me verify the full defense roster and Truvic's representation.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Imperative Care, Inc.

Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: Imperative Care's defense is handled entirely by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP — the same firm that prosecutes Imperative Care's IPR petitions at the PTAB. No Perkins Coie attorney appears for the defense, and I found no in-house counsel of record. Three Knobbe attorneys have appeared in the district court, with a fourth (Barnes) visible only in the PTAB proceedings.

Roster

Service/administrative contact for the defense: LitTSPVL.107L@knobbe.com; PTAB correspondence to case-specific boxes such as BoxImperative910@knobbe.com and BoxImperative005@knobbe.com.

Party-side note you should carry forward

The docket style is **"IMPERATIVE CARE, INC., et al."** because the original defendant was Truvic Medical, Inc. (the case first appeared as Inari Medical Inc v. Truvic Medical Inc et al.). Per the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 112) ¶ 7, Imperative Care acquired Truvic in July 2021 and Truvic was merged into Imperative Care, so later pleadings name only Imperative Care, Inc. Truvic nonetheless answered (July 29, 2024; Feb. 21, 2025) and shares the same Knobbe counsel. Re, Stowell and Belair are docketed for both entities and also for Imperative Care as counterclaimant.

Corrections to earlier sections of this report

1. The "dual representation" anomaly is resolved — it is a document artifact, not a conflict. Knobbe Martens represents only the defendant(s); Perkins Coie (Al-Salam, Tessar, Keese, Bervik, Kendrick, Li, Hamilton) represents only Inari. The Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 107) carries both parties' signature blocks on one filing, which is what produced the appearance that Knobbe attorneys were "Attorneys for Plaintiff." The docket report (reproduced as Ex. 2007 in IPR2025-00289) likewise jumbles the party-attorney map — it lists "Ramsey M. Al-Salam … ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" and "Daniel Tyler Keese" under the defendant/counterclaimant entries. Both are Perkins Coie/Inari attorneys (Keese's pro hac vice appears at 1/15/2025). Treat those entries as docket-data noise.
2. "EKL" is Judge Eumi K. Lee, not Edward K. Lee. The orders are signed "Judge Eumi K. Lee" (e.g., Dkt. 54, Dkt. 123). Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim is shown as the referral judge in third-party dockets (Unified Patents) — verify before relying on it.
3. Case number/division: the live docket is 5:24-cv-03117-EKL (San Jose Division); the metadata's "3:24-cv-03117" and stray "4:24-cv-03117" references in filings are alternative/erroneous renderings of the same case.
4. Pro hac vice: unnecessary for the defense team — Re, Stowell and Belair are all California-barred. (Inari, by contrast, needed PHV for Tessar, Bervik and Kendrick.)

What I could not confirm

• No in-house Imperative Care attorney appears on the public docket excerpts reviewed; if Imperative Care's legal department is monitoring, it is not of record.
• Whether Brian C. Barnes has filed a district-court notice of appearance — the April 2025 docket report and the July 3, 2025 NEF distribution list show only Re, Stowell and Belair for the defense.
• Whether any additional Knobbe associate has entered an appearance since the case was stayed (the most recent defense-side events I could source are the January 21, 2026 joint stipulation to continue the stay, Dkts. 139–140, which were filed while the case was stayed). The docket should be re-pulled on PACER to capture anything after that date; the ECF NEF list is the cleanest way to confirm the current appearance roster.

Sources

• Dkt. 136, Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Sept. 29, 2025), 5:24-cv-03117-EKL (caption "Imperative Care, Inc., et al.").
• Dkt. 107, Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement (Apr. 28, 2025) — defense signature block (Re/Stowell/Belair, "Attorneys for Defendant Imperative Care, Inc.") and plaintiff block (Al-Salam/Tessar, Perkins Coie).
• Defense Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Ex. 2011 in IPR2025-00289) — same defense signature block.
• Civil Docket Report, Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., 5:24-cv-03117-EKL, reproduced as Ex. 2007 in IPR2025-00289 (Docket Alarm) — party-attorney listings; Dkt. 15 Notice of Appearance by Belair (6/6/2024).
• ECF NEF for Dkt. 123 (July 3, 2025) — service list of record attorneys.
• IPR2025-01025 Petition (May 20, 2025), U.S. Pat. 11,974,910 — "On behalf of Imperative Care, Inc. By: Joshua J. Stowell, Joseph R. Re, Brian C. Barnes, Knobbe Martens."
• IPR2025-01264 Hearing Transcript (Feb. 6, 2026) — appearances for Petitioner by Stowell and Barnes.
• IPR2024-01257 family / IPR2025-00156 Power of Attorney (Nov. 8, 2024) — Knobbe Martens, Customer No. 20,995, courtesy-copy list to Inari's Perkins Coie counsel.
• Declaration of Trevor J. Bervik (Mar. 5, 2025), Dkt. 88-4 — identifies Stowell as Truvic's counsel and Al-Salam/Tessar as Inari's.
• Thomson Reuters/IP Law Daily, "Preliminary injunction denied in thrombectomy system dispute" (Sept. 30, 2025): "Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Perkins Coie LLP) for Inari Medical, Inc. Joshua Jan Stowell (Knobbe Martens Olson and Bear, LLP) for Imperative Care, Inc."
• Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. 112 (May 29, 2025) ¶ 7 (Truvic merger into Imperative Care).