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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Inari Medical Inc. v. Imperative Care Inc. 3:24-cv-03117 defendant counsel", "Imperative Care Inc. patent litigation counsel", "Imperative Care Inc. 3:24-cv-03117 docket", "USPTO IPR2024-01257 counsel Imperative Care", "Imperative Care Inc. v. Inari Medical Inc. IPR2024-01257"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant, Imperative Care, Inc., in the case Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-03117. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney. I should leverage web search, including PACER, docket sheets, firm websites, and legal news sources.

I will start by searching for the docket to identify the appearing attorneys. Given the case is active and a preliminary injunction motion was denied, counsel should definitely have appeared.

My search queries will focus on finding the defendant's attorneys specifically.Imperative Care, Inc., the defendant in Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc. (3:24-cv-03117), is represented by attorneys from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.

The following attorneys are consistently listed as representing Imperative Care, Inc. in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which directly reference the district court case and the patent at issue:

• Joseph R. Re

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from consistent appearance and leadership in IPR filings)
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine, CA
  • Experience Note: Joseph R. Re is a highly experienced patent litigation attorney, frequently involved in complex patent disputes and IPRs. His registration number (Reg. No. 31,291) is noted in official filings.

• Joshua J. Stowell

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from consistent appearance and listing in IPR filings)
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine, CA
  • Experience Note: Joshua J. Stowell is actively involved in the IPR proceedings against Inari Medical, Inc., challenging various patents, including the one at issue in the district court case. His registration number (Reg. No. 64,096) is noted in official filings.

• Brian C. Barnes

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine, CA
  • Experience Note: Brian C. Barnes also appears on filings for Imperative Care, Inc. in the IPR proceedings against Inari Medical, Inc. His registration number (Reg. No. 75,805) is noted in official filings.

While direct PACER access to the district court docket was not available for this analysis, the consistent appearance of these attorneys and their firm in multiple IPR filings by Imperative Care, Inc. that explicitly reference the district court case (3:24-cv-03117) and the patent (11,974,910) strongly indicates they are the counsel of record for the defendant in the district court litigation.