PTAB challenges

As a senior PTAB practitioner, here is my analysis of the post-grant proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 11,969,333.

Proceedings Overview

There has been one Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,969,333. This proceeding is currently active, as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted a trial to review the patentability of all challenged claims. This creates a significant defensive opportunity for any party accused of infringing this patent, as the PTAB has already determined there is a "reasonable likelihood" the claims will be found invalid.

---

IPR2025-01021 — Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-19
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has formally initiated a trial to determine the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Public records for this proceeding would need to be consulted for the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) based on a combination of prior art references.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims (1-11). In its decision, the Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., had established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability of these claims. The Board was persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention for removing emboli.
• Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision (FWD) has not yet been issued. The statutory deadline for the FWD is one year from the date of institution.
• Settlement / termination: There is no public record of a settlement or termination; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides a strong basis for a defense against an infringement allegation. The fact that the PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims—including independent claims 1 and 12 (assuming claim 12 was also challenged, though the provided data only specifies 1-11)—indicates a significant vulnerability in the patent's validity. The arguments, expert declarations, and prior art from this IPR can provide a well-developed roadmap for an invalidity defense in district court.

Strategic Summary

Based on the instituted IPR, the validity of a substantial portion of the '333 patent is in serious question.

• Claim Status:

  • CANCELED: None.
  • SUSTAINED: None.
  • UNDER REVIEW: Claims 1-11 are currently under review in IPR2025-01021.
  • UNTESTED: Claims 12-20 have not been challenged in this proceeding. However, should claim 1 be invalidated, its dependent claims (2-11) would likely fall with it. Independent claim 12, which covers a method, remains a potential threat if it was not part of the IPR challenge.

• Estoppel Landscape: The petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc. (and any real parties-in-interest or privies), will be subject to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Once the PTAB issues a Final Written Decision, Imperative Care will be barred from raising any invalidity grounds in district court or another PTAB proceeding that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For any other defendant, this estoppel does not apply. The arguments and prior art used by Imperative Care are freely available for use, and a new defendant could also search for and assert different prior art.

• Pattern Signals: The petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., is a direct competitor to the patent owner, Inari Medical, Inc. This indicates a strategic, commercially-driven challenge rather than a nuisance suit or a validity challenge from a defensive aggregator. The IPR was filed just over a year after the patent's issuance, suggesting the patent is considered a significant asset in the market that competitors need to clear.

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant currently facing an infringement suit involving U.S. Patent No. 11,969,333, the following steps are recommended:

• Monitor the IPR: The outcome of IPR2025-01021 is the single most important near-term event. The Final Written Decision is due approximately one year from the institution date. You should track the PTAB docket for key events like the Patent Owner's Response, the oral hearing, and the final decision.
• Obtain the IPR File History: Immediately download the full file wrapper for IPR2025-01021 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E system. The petition and the institution decision contain a detailed, claim-by-claim analysis of the prior art and the PTAB's reasoning, which can be directly incorporated into your own invalidity contentions.
• Seek a Stay of Litigation: If you have been sued in district court, you should strongly consider filing a motion to stay the case pending the Final Written Decision in the IPR. Courts frequently grant such stays to avoid wasting judicial and party resources, especially when the PTAB has instituted a trial on all or most of the asserted claims. The high likelihood of claim cancellation makes a stay a compelling strategic move.