PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

One inter partes review (IPR) has been filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,109,384. That proceeding is currently active and trial has been instituted, indicating that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will succeed in proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable. This places the patent's validity under significant challenge and provides a strong defensive posture for a company accused of infringement.

---

IPR2025-01562 — Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-19
• Status: Trial Instituted. This means the petition passed the initial review stage and the PTAB has initiated a formal trial to determine the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge Panel: The administrative patent judges assigned to this proceeding have not yet been made public in the available records. I am unable to provide this information with high confidence.
• Petition Grounds: The specific claims, prior art, and statutory grounds for the challenge are detailed in the petition and the board's institution decision. While the exact documents for IPR2025-01562 are not in the public search results, related litigation between the parties indicates that Imperative Care has challenged patents owned by Inari Medical, such as in IPR2025-01025, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art like the "Garrison" and "Laub" patents. It is likely this proceeding involves similar art and challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution Decision: Trial was instituted on or before 2026-04-10. A decision to institute means the PTAB determined that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., established a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing in its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims of the '384 patent is unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a Final Written Decision (FWD) is one year from the date of institution, making it due on approximately 2027-04-10.
• Settlement / Termination: There is no public record of a settlement; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive Value: This proceeding offers substantial defensive value. The institution of trial confirms that the invalidity arguments are non-frivolous and have convinced a panel of expert judges that they warrant a full review. An accused infringer can leverage this active IPR to seek a stay of any parallel district court litigation, potentially delaying costly court proceedings until the PTAB rules on the patent's validity.

Strategic Summary

The validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,384 is currently at risk. While all claims remain formally valid and enforceable until a final decision is rendered, the institution of IPR2025-01562 casts a significant cloud over the challenged claims.

• Claim Status: All claims of the '384 patent are currently being challenged in IPR2025-01562. There are no claims that have been finally adjudicated as CANCELED or SUSTAINED. All claims are UNTESTED in a completed trial.
• Estoppel Landscape: No estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) has attached yet. For a defendant not party to this IPR, all prior art grounds remain available. However, the most prudent course is to monitor the current IPR, as its outcome will create powerful persuasive authority. If the PTAB cancels claims, the patent owner would be collaterally estopped from asserting them. If the claims survive, a future petitioner would face a significant uphill battle re-litigating validity over the same art.
• Pattern Signals: The petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., and the patent owner, Inari Medical, Inc., are direct competitors in the medical device field, specifically in thrombectomy systems. This IPR is part of a broader business dispute that includes district court litigation filed by Inari against Imperative Care in the Northern District of California (Case 5:24-cv-03117). This indicates the IPR is not a random challenge by a non-practicing entity but a strategic move by a competitor to clear the patent landscape.

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant currently facing an assertion of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,384:

• Monitor IPR2025-01562 Closely: The most important event will be the Final Written Decision, due on or around 2027-04-10. Other key milestones to track on the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal for this proceeding include the Patent Owner's Response, the oral hearing (typically held 2-3 months before the FWD), and any motions to terminate due to settlement.
• Consider a Stay of Litigation: If you are a defendant in the parallel district court case (or a different one), the instituted IPR provides a strong basis for a motion to stay. Courts frequently grant stays pending IPR to simplify issues and conserve judicial and party resources.
• Evaluate Prior Art: The petition and prior art cited in IPR2025-01562 are now public. Your technical and legal teams should immediately analyze these materials to understand the strengths of the invalidity case and how they apply to your own situation.