Penumbra Inc v. Rapidpulse Inc

This case is an appellate-level patent dispute between two direct competitors in the medical device industry for stroke treatment. The plaintiff-appellant, Penumbra, Inc., is a large, publicly traded global healthcare company headquartered in Alameda, California, that designs and manufactures devices for treating vascular conditions like strokes and aneurysms. The defendant-appellee, Rapidpulse Inc., is a venture-backed medical device company based in Miami, Florida, also developing minimally invasive products to treat ischemic stroke. Both companies are operating entities, not non-practicing entities (NPEs). The technology at issue involves aspiration thrombectomy systems, which are medical devices that use catheters and suction to remove blood clots (thrombi) from blood vessels, particularly in the brain. Penumbra is challenging the validity of Rapidpulse's U.S. Patent No. 11,406,402. The '402 patent, titled "Aspiration Thrombectomy System," claims a system that uses a controller to cyclically operate vacuum and vent valves, thereby creating pulsed suction at the catheter's tip to improve the efficiency and safety of clot removal.

The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the specialized court with nationwide jurisdiction over patent appeals. This procedural posture indicates the dispute has advanced beyond an initial trial-level proceeding. Research reveals that this appeal stems from a prior administrative challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In August 2024, Penumbra filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition (IPR2024-01261) challenging the validity of claims 1-20 of the '402 patent. On February 16, 2026, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, concluding that Penumbra had not shown the challenged claims were unpatentable. Penumbra's subsequent filing at the Federal Circuit in April 2026 is an appeal of that adverse PTAB decision.

This case is notable as it represents a high-stakes conflict between an established market leader and an innovative challenger in the critical field of neurovascular stroke intervention. The outcome could significantly impact the competitive landscape for these life-saving devices. The linkage to the PTAB is also significant, illustrating the common dual-track strategy in modern patent litigation where an accused infringer challenges a patent's validity in the administrative PTAB forum while potentially also facing an infringement suit in district court. Records indicate this is not the first patent clash between the two companies, with prior PTAB disputes over other patents, signaling an ongoing and broader intellectual property battle for market position.

As of today's date, May 1, 2026, the legal dispute between Penumbra, Inc. and Rapidpulse, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,406,402 is an active appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case's developments are rooted in a prior administrative challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rather than a district court infringement action.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Parallel PTAB Proceeding (IPR2024-01261)

The current Federal Circuit appeal is a direct result of a preceding inter partes review (IPR) where Penumbra unsuccessfully challenged the validity of Rapidpulse's patent.

• 2024-08-02: IPR Petition Filed. Penumbra, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review, docketed as IPR2024-01261, against U.S. Patent No. 11,406,402, owned by Rapidpulse, Inc. The petition challenged the patentability of claims 1-20, asserting they were obvious in light of prior art. This move is a common strategy for companies to proactively challenge the validity of a competitor's patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's administrative court.
• ~2024-11: Patent Owner's Preliminary Response. Rapidpulse filed its preliminary response to Penumbra's petition, arguing that the petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.
• 2025-02-14: Institution Decision. The PTAB issued a decision to institute the IPR, finding that Penumbra had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge for at least one of the challenged claims. This decision initiated a trial phase at the PTAB.
• 2026-02-16: Final Written Decision. After the trial period, which includes discovery and briefing, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision (FWD). The Board concluded that Penumbra had not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 of the '402 patent were unpatentable. This decision was a significant victory for the patent owner, Rapidpulse, as it affirmed the validity of the patent claims against Penumbra's challenge.

Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 26-1719)

Following its loss at the PTAB, Penumbra sought review from the Federal Circuit, the appellate court with exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases.

• 2026-04-22: Notice of Appeal Filed. Penumbra, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, officially commencing the appellate case No. 26-1719. Penumbra is the appellant, seeking to overturn the PTAB's final decision, and Rapidpulse is the appellee.
• Current Status (2026-05-01): Appeal Pending. The appeal is in its earliest stages. The case docket has been opened, but as of this date, a briefing schedule has not yet been set. The parties will next submit written briefs outlining their legal arguments for and against the PTAB's decision. Penumbra's opening brief will detail the alleged legal and factual errors in the PTAB's analysis, after which Rapidpulse will file a response brief defending the PTAB's decision. Oral argument will likely be scheduled for late 2026 or early 2027, with a final decision from the Federal Circuit expected several months after that.

At present, there is no public record of a parallel district court infringement litigation between Penumbra and Rapidpulse involving the '402 patent. The dispute appears to be confined to the PTAB and the subsequent appeal, suggesting a "reverse-litigation" scenario where the validity of the patent is being contested before any infringement has been formally alleged in court. This approach can be a strategic effort by Penumbra to clear a path for its own products by invalidating a competitor's potentially problematic patent. The outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal will be determinative for the validity of the '402 patent's claims.

Counsel of Record: Penumbra Inc.

As of May 1, 2026, the appeal is in its nascent stages, and the official entry of appearance for all counsel may not yet be filed or publicly available on the Federal Circuit docket. However, the counsel who represented Penumbra during the underlying inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are highly likely to continue their representation in the appeal. The attorneys from the PTAB proceeding, IPR2024-01261, are listed below.

For Plaintiff-Appellant Penumbra, Inc.

Based on the filings in the antecedent PTAB case (IPR2024-01261), Penumbra's representation is led by the intellectual property firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

• Name: Dr. Mackenna F. White

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Dr. White is a partner in the firm's Patent Litigation and PTAB Trials practice and has extensive experience representing both patent owners and petitioners in IPRs involving medical device and life sciences technologies.

• Name: Dr. Anita J. Choi

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Dr. Choi is a partner whose practice focuses on patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, with a background in molecular biology that informs her work in the medical device sector.

• Name: Mr. B.C. "Brad" Wright

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Mr. Wright is a senior of counsel and a seasoned appellate litigator with significant experience arguing before the Federal Circuit, specializing in complex patent appeals originating from both district courts and the PTAB.

It is standard practice for the attorneys who handled the PTAB trial to continue as counsel of record for the subsequent Federal Circuit appeal. This information will be confirmed once Penumbra files its opening brief or official entry of appearance forms with the appellate court. There is no indication of separate in-house counsel being listed on the PTAB filings, though Penumbra maintains a substantial in-house legal department that would be actively involved in the case strategy.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of Record: Rapidpulse Inc.

As of May 1, 2026, the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is in its initial phase, and official appearances may not yet be recorded on the appellate docket. The counsel listed below are from the antecedent inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2024-01261) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and it is anticipated they will continue to represent Rapidpulse, Inc. as the appellee in this appeal.

For Defendant-Appellee Rapidpulse Inc.

Rapidpulse was represented in the PTAB proceeding by attorneys from the intellectual property boutique firm Fish & Richardson P.C., known for its extensive patent litigation and post-grant practice.

• Name: Esha Bandyopadhyay

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: Bandyopadhyay is a principal at the firm with a focus on high-stakes patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, particularly within the medical device and life sciences industries.

• Name: Wasif Qureshi

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Qureshi is a principal and an experienced appellate litigator who has argued numerous cases before the Federal Circuit, specializing in appeals from both district courts and the PTAB.

• Name: Grace Y. J. Kim

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: Kim is an associate whose practice centers on patent litigation and PTAB trials, with a technical background in biomedical engineering relevant to the medical devices at issue.

This legal team successfully defended the '402 patent at the PTAB, leading to the Final Written Decision in Rapidpulse's favor. Their representation is expected to be formally confirmed once they file a notice of appearance or their response brief in CAFC case number 26-1719. There is no information to suggest that in-house counsel for Rapidpulse was formally listed as counsel of record in the PTAB matter.