Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Inari Medical Inc.

Unified Patents PTAB Data has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US patent 12016580, with Inari Medical Inc. identified as the implicit patent owner. Unified Patents PTAB Data operates as a membership-based organization, often referred to as a patent watchdog, whose primary objective is to deter the assertion of "bad patents" and "frivolous patent litigation" by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or other patent owners. They achieve this by filing IPRs to challenge patent validity on behalf of their member companies, which are typically operating companies in various technology sectors. Inari Medical Inc., now a part of Stryker Corporation following a $4.9 billion acquisition completed in February 2025, is a medical device company. Inari Medical focuses on developing innovative catheter-based technologies for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Their product portfolio features mechanical thrombectomy systems such as the FlowTriever and ClotTriever systems, designed for the removal of large blood clots.

The patent at issue, US patent 12016580, is undergoing an IPR at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In an IPR, the validity of the patent's claims is challenged based on prior art, rather than an "accused product" infringing the patent. A specific technical sketch of US patent 12016580 is not immediately available in the search results without directly accessing the patent document itself. However, given Inari Medical's focus, it is highly probable the patent relates to medical devices or methods for treating venous thromboembolism. The procedural posture is that the IPR has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, allowing the review to proceed to the merits phase.

This case is notable due to several factors. Firstly, it involves Unified Patents, a prominent entity in the IPR landscape known for its strategic use of PTAB proceedings to challenge patents that might otherwise be asserted in district court litigation. Secondly, Inari Medical's recent acquisition by Stryker, a global leader in medical technologies, highlights the commercial significance of Inari's patent portfolio within the rapidly growing peripheral vascular segment. The IPR could therefore impact the value and enforceability of intellectual property acquired in a major industry transaction, potentially influencing the competitive landscape for VTE treatment devices. Furthermore, the case is linked to ongoing district court litigation between Inari Medical, Inc. and Imperative Care, Inc. where Imperative Care filed the IPRs and a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of these IPR proceedings, illustrating the interplay between PTAB challenges and infringement lawsuits.## Case Overview and Background

This case, Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Inari Medical Inc., involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data challenging the validity of US patent 12016580, where Inari Medical Inc. is the patent owner. Unified Patents PTAB Data is a membership-based organization that positions itself as a patent watchdog. Its core function is to deter the assertion of what it deems "bad patents" and "frivolous patent litigation," often initiated by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), by filing IPR petitions to challenge patent validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inari Medical Inc., the implicit patent owner, is a medical device operating company that specializes in developing innovative catheter-based technologies for treating venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Their key products include the FlowTriever and ClotTriever systems, which are mechanical thrombectomy devices designed for removing large blood clots. Notably, Inari Medical Inc. was acquired by Stryker Corporation, a global medical technologies leader, for approximately $4.9 billion, with the acquisition completed in February 2025.

The patent at issue is US patent 12016580. While a detailed technical sketch is not immediately available without direct access to the patent document, given Inari Medical's business, it is highly likely to pertain to medical devices, systems, or methods for thrombectomy or the treatment of venous diseases. In an IPR proceeding, the focus is on challenging the patentability of the claims based on prior art, rather than on an accused product or service infringing the patent. The procedural posture of this case is an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the petition has been instituted. This means the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of patent 12016580 is unpatentable, allowing the review process to move forward to a merits hearing.

This case is particularly notable for several reasons. The involvement of Unified Patents highlights its continued role in leveraging IPRs to challenge patents, a strategy that often aims to protect its member operating companies from potential infringement suits. Furthermore, the patent owner, Inari Medical, is a recent acquisition of Stryker, underscoring the commercial significance of the intellectual property being challenged. The outcome of this IPR could have implications for Stryker's strategic position and the competitive landscape within the peripheral vascular and VTE treatment market. Public records also indicate that this IPR is linked to district court litigation between Inari Medical, Inc. and Imperative Care, Inc., where Imperative Care, Inc. filed the IPR petitions against Inari and sought to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's decision, demonstrating the strategic interplay between PTAB challenges and broader patent disputes.

IPR Filed Challenging Inari Medical Patent, District Court Litigation Stayed

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01264, was initiated by Imperative Care, Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,016,580, owned by Inari Medical Inc. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted the IPR. This IPR is one of several filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical, running parallel to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit in district court.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Parallel District Court Litigation and Motion to Stay:

• May 2024: Inari Medical, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Imperative Care, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-03117-EKL-SVKx). In this lawsuit, Inari Medical asserted infringement of approximately 200 claims from eleven patents.
• July 16, 2025: A hearing was held on Imperative Care's motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of IPR proceedings.
• September 29, 2025: The District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Imperative Care's motion to stay the patent infringement case. The court stayed the action in its entirety until February 4, 2026, to allow for PTAB institution decisions on Imperative Care's petitions regarding the nine original patents asserted. The court found that the case was at an early stage, and a stay would likely simplify the case and conserve resources.
• January 21, 2026: The parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the stay of the district court litigation. Inari proposed continuing the stay until after the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00156 (relating to U.S. Patent No. 11,697,012), which was statutorily required by April 22, 2026.
• January 28, 2026: A case management conference was initially scheduled but subsequently vacated.
• April 29, 2026: The parties were to file a joint case management statement updating the status of all pending IPR proceedings.
• May 6, 2026 (or convenient date): A further case management conference was set, and the district court action was stayed in its entirety until the date of this conference.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings:

• February 10, 2025: The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Imperative Care concerning Inari's U.S. Patent No. 11,744,691 (the '691 patent).
• July 7, 2025: Imperative Care, Inc. filed IPR2025-01264, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,016,580.
• Before September 29, 2025: The PTAB instituted IPRs on three out of four petitions by Imperative Care that had received institution decisions by that date.
• By January 21, 2026: The PTAB had instituted eight IPRs on various Inari Medical patents, including the '580 patent at issue in IPR2025-01264. The PTAB had also denied institution for one IPR (the '691 Patent).
• January 16, 2026: The PTAB issued a final written decision for an IPR concerning Inari's '011 patent, finding all claims (Claims 1-9) unpatentable.

The district court litigation remains stayed, and the parties are awaiting further PTAB decisions on the various IPRs, including IPR2025-01264. The current posture of the district court case is a continued stay, with a case management conference scheduled for May 6, 2026, or a date convenient to the court. The specific outcome of IPR2025-01264 beyond its institution is not yet publicly available in the provided search results.

Unified Patents PTAB Data, as the petitioner in IPR2025-01264, is a non-practicing entity deterrence organization and not a traditional law firm. As such, it does not typically have "plaintiff's counsel" in the same way an operating company would in a district court patent infringement case. Instead, Unified Patents utilizes its internal legal team, often referred to as "Senior Patent Counsel," and frequently engages outside counsel for Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-01264, the specific counsel of record for this particular case cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for IPRs are typically publicly available through the PTAB's electronic filing system, but specific attorneys are not always prominently listed in general public search results for an IPR case number.

However, Unified Patents regularly posts job openings for Senior Patent Counsel with requirements for significant PTAB experience, including drafting petitions, filing, litigating, and deposition experience. They also frequently collaborate with various law firms for their IPR activities. Some of the law firms that commonly represent petitioners in PTAB proceedings, and with whom Unified Patents may engage, include Fish & Richardson PC, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, and Finnegan, Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, among others.

To identify the precise counsel for IPR2025-01264, direct access to the official PTAB docket for this case would be required.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01264, Inari Medical Inc. is represented by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP.

Counsel of Record for Inari Medical Inc.:

• Joseph P. Hamilton (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Joseph P. Hamilton is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 51,770) and is listed as counsel in other IPR proceedings involving Inari Medical.

• Matthew Williams (Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA
  • Note: Matthew Williams is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 77,516) and is listed in IPR proceedings related to Inari Medical.

• Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA
  • Note: Ramsey Al-Salam is also listed as an attorney for Inari Medical in related district court litigation.

• Amanda Tessar (Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Denver, CO
  • Note: Amanda Tessar is admitted pro hac vice in related district court litigation where Perkins Coie represents Inari Medical.

Additionally, Joshua P., Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property at Inari, may be involved in an in-house capacity, leading cross-functional intellectual property teams.