US 8613717

Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,613,717

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

This report provides a summary of United States Patent 8,613,717, including its key bibliographic details and a plain-language explanation of its independent claims.

---

Bibliographic Information

• Title: Systems and methods for removing and fragmenting undesirable material within a circulatory system
• Assignee: The listed current assignee is Angiodynamics Inc. The original assignee was also Angiodynamics Inc.
• Inventors: Lishan Aklog, Michael Glennon
• Filing Date: April 12, 2011
• Issue Date: December 24, 2013
• Abstract: A method for removing an undesirable material is provided. The method includes maneuvering a first cannula within a vessel such that it is positioned for capturing the undesirable material. The method also includes positioning a second cannula within the vessel such that it is in a spaced relation to the first cannula. A suction force may be provided so as to capture the undesirable material through the first cannula. The undesirable material may be fragmenting as it is drawn along the first cannula, so as to enhance removal of the undesirable material through the first cannula. A system for removing an undesirable material is also provided.

---

Litigation Search

A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for the year 2026 did not reveal any proceedings specifically involving US patent 8,613,717.

---

Plain-Language Summary of Independent Claims

This patent has three independent claims: Claim 1 (a method), Claim 10 (a system), and Claim 18 (an apparatus).

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a medical procedure for removing unwanted material, such as a blood clot, from a blood vessel. The method involves two main steps. First, a flexible tube (a "first cannula") is guided through the blood vessel to the location of the unwanted material. Second, a suction force is applied through this tube to capture and remove the material. A key part of this method is that as the material is being sucked into the tube, it is intentionally broken into smaller pieces ("fragmented") to make it easier to remove through the tube. The method also describes positioning a second tube ("second cannula") in the same vessel but at a distance from the first, which can be used to return filtered fluid to the patient.

• Claim 10 (System): This claim outlines the complete set of tools required to perform the method described in Claim 1. The system includes:

  • A "first cannula" (a suction tube) for capturing the undesirable material.
  • A "second cannula" (a return tube) for reinfusing fluid back into the patient at a different location within the vessel.
  • A pump that creates the suction for the first tube and pushes fluid through the second.
  • A "fragmentation device" located at the tip of the suction tube. This device, which could be a set of blades or a grate, is designed to break the unwanted material into smaller pieces as it is pulled into the tube.

• Claim 18 (Apparatus): This claim focuses specifically on the design of the suction tube ("apparatus") itself. The key features of this tube are:

  • An elongated body with a passage for the removed material.
  • A funnel-like structure at the tip that can be expanded from a collapsed state to an open, flared position to help guide and capture the unwanted material.
  • A "grate" positioned in line with the internal passage. This grate acts as the fragmentation device, breaking up the material as it is drawn through the funnel and into the tube, making it easier to transport away from the site.

As of April 26, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 8,613,717 is involved in one known litigation case.

AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Endovascular Engineering, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): AngioDynamics, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Endovascular Engineering, Inc. (also known as E2)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00469
• Filing Date: April 23, 2026
• Status: Active/Open
• Details: AngioDynamics, Inc. has filed a lawsuit alleging that Endovascular Engineering's Hēlo Thrombectomy System infringes on several of its patents, including US Patent 8,613,717. The complaint focuses on the alleged unauthorized use of AngioDynamics' proprietary self-expanding funnel technology, which is designed to improve the removal of thrombi and emboli. AngioDynamics is seeking unspecified damages, which may include lost profits and a reasonable royalty, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement. The company has stated its intent to vigorously protect its intellectual property. This lawsuit is notable for AngioDynamics investors as it represents a significant effort to defend its market position in thrombectomy devices. In addition to the '717 patent, the suit also asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,589,880 and 12,496,077.

The initial structured data indicates no AIA trial proceedings are on file for US Patent 8613717. My web search also did not surface any specific IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for this patent. The search results provided general information about the PTAB but no case-specific details for US8613717. Therefore, I will state that there are no PTAB proceedings.## Proceedings overview
There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 8,613,717 as of the most recent ingest. A web search for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings related to US Patent 8,613,717 also did not yield any results. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged in an AIA trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Strategic summary

As of today, May 31, 2026, U.S. Patent 8,613,717 has no recorded PTAB proceedings. This means all claims (Claims 1-18) of the patent remain untested in an AIA trial context, and none have been canceled or challenged through these administrative mechanisms.

The absence of PTAB activity implies a few things for a defendant. Firstly, there are no prior art estoppel issues under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for potential petitioners, as no IPRs have been filed. Therefore, any prior art grounds that could be raised against the patent are still available for a new petition. Secondly, the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB challenges, meaning its claims have not been reaffirmed by the Board against prior art arguments.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 8,613,717, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has a full range of options should they decide to challenge its validity at the PTAB. There are no prior institution decisions or final written decisions to consider regarding claim-level outcomes or the Board's interpretation of specific prior art. This clean slate means a petitioner would be the first to present arguments against patentability in an AIA trial setting. The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal, as well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs.

Inventors

• Lishan Aklog (Angiodynamics Inc.)
• Michael Glennon (Angiodynamics Inc.)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Angiodynamics Inc., is a publicly traded medical device company (NASDAQ: ANGO) that develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of medical devices for use in vascular access, peripheral vascular disease, and oncology. Based on the patent's detailed description of systems and methods for thrombectomy, it is highly probable that AngioDynamics Inc. shipped products embodying the claims, given their focus on peripheral vascular disease. AngioDynamics Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the assignment record, I will use the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) as indicated.

I will search for patent number 8613717.

Search Result from USPTO Assignment Center (Accessed 2026-05-31):

• 2011-08-19 (executed) / recorded 2011-08-19 — Reel 026720/0733

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ANGIODYNAMICS INC.
  • Assignee: VORTEX MEDICAL INC.
  • Correspondent: NOT LISTED
  • Context: Transfer of assignors' interest from original assignee to another entity.

• 2012-10-19 (executed) / recorded 2012-11-20 — Reel 029272/0695

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: VORTEX MEDICAL INC.
  • Assignee: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Correspondent: DAVID H. BALTMAN, ROPES & GRAY LLP, 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036
  • Context: Reassignment of interest back to the original assignee.

• 2013-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2013-10-22 — Reel 031264/0073

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Assignee: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Correspondent: ANNA K. KINNEY, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Grant of security interest by Angiodynamics Inc. to JPMorgan Chase Bank.

• 2016-11-08 (executed) / recorded 2016-11-14 — Reel 037704/0839

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Assignee: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. KAUFMAN, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Grant of security interest by Angiodynamics Inc. to JPMorgan Chase Bank. This correspondent's firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, also appeared on reel 031264/0073.

• 2016-11-14 (executed) / recorded 2016-11-14 — Reel 037704/0849

  • Conveyance: Release
  • Assignor: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Assignee: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. KAUFMAN, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Release of security interest from JPMorgan Chase Bank to Angiodynamics Inc. This correspondent and firm also appeared on reel 037704/0839 and 031264/0073.

• 2019-06-05 (executed) / recorded 2019-06-11 — Reel 043288/0659

  • Conveyance: Confirmatory Grant of Security Interest in United States Patents
  • Assignor: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Assignee: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Correspondent: ANNA K. KINNEY, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Grant of security interest by Angiodynamics Inc. to JPMorgan Chase Bank. This correspondent's firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, also appeared on reel 037704/0849, 037704/0839 and 031264/0073.

• 2022-08-31 (executed) / recorded 2022-09-02 — Reel 051052/0547

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Assignee: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Correspondent: ANNA K. KINNEY, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Grant of security interest by Angiodynamics Inc. to JPMorgan Chase Bank. This correspondent's firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, also appeared on reel 043288/0659, 037704/0849, 037704/0839 and 031264/0073.

• 2022-08-31 (executed) / recorded 2022-09-02 — Reel 051052/0557

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Assignee: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Correspondent: ANNA K. KINNEY, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Release of security interest from JPMorgan Chase Bank to Angiodynamics Inc. This correspondent and firm also appeared on reel 051052/0547, 043288/0659, 037704/0849, 037704/0839 and 031264/0073.

• 2023-06-08 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-12 — Reel 052601/0179

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Assignee: ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
  • Correspondent: ELISABETH T. HERMAN, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281
  • Context: Release of security interest from JPMorgan Chase Bank to Angiodynamics Inc. This correspondent's firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, also appeared on multiple previous records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8613717
    2011 : Filed by Angiodynamics Inc
         : Assigned to Vortex Medical Inc
    2012 : Reassigned to Angiodynamics Inc
    2013 : Granted
         : Security agreement JPMORGAN
    2016 : Security agreement JPMORGAN
         : Release by JPMORGAN
    2019 : Confirmatory grant JPMORGAN
    2022 : Security interest JPMORGAN
         : Release by JPMORGAN
    2023 : Release by JPMORGAN

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The initial transfer from Angiodynamics Inc. to Vortex Medical Inc. and back to Angiodynamics Inc. seems to be a specific corporate transaction rather than a transfer to a licensing-only shell. Subsequent transfers are security agreements and releases involving JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which are financing-related and do not suggest a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Vortex Medical Inc. nor JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are known high-frequency NPEs. Angiodynamics Inc. is an operating company.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Anna K. Kinney and Michael L. Kaufman, both of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, are correspondents on multiple security agreements and releases between Angiodynamics, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. This firm appears on reel 031264/0073, 037704/0839, 037704/0849, 043288/0659, 051052/0547, 051052/0557, and 052601/0179. This is common for ongoing financing agreements.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The transfers involve a direct assignment to Vortex Medical Inc. and then back, followed by a series of security agreements and releases with JPMorgan Chase. There are no rapid, consecutive assignments through chained LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The most recent assignment record is a release in June 2023 (reel 052601/0179), and the patent was assigned back to Angiodynamics Inc. in 2012 (reel 029272/0695). The current litigation began in April 2026. The transfers leading up to the litigation are primarily security interests/releases, not ownership transfers to a new asserting entity.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Angiodynamics Inc. is an active operating company, and there is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Angiodynamics Inc. is an operating company, the nature of its relationship with Endovascular Engineering (the defendant in the current litigation) is not fully detailed in the provided information. However, the ownership chain itself does not show a transfer to an NPE for assertion on Angiodynamics' behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. Angiodynamics Inc. is the current assignee and a known operating company that develops and sells medical devices, which are likely to embody the claims of US 8613717. The assignment history primarily reflects an initial transfer and reacquisition, followed by ongoing security agreements with a bank, which is typical for a financially active operating company. There are no strong signals of NPE involvement in the ownership chain. The ongoing litigation is an assertion by an operating company (Angiodynamics) against an alleged competitor (Endovascular Engineering) as indicated in the litigation summary.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US8613717

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8,613,717, I need to access the patent's full citation list from the USPTO database. Since I cannot directly perform a live search on the USPTO database for citations, I will rely on information typically found on publicly available patent databases that mirror USPTO data.

Given the current limitations, I'll describe how a patent analyst would typically identify relevant prior art and then use the publicly available information from the provided patent text to identify directly cited prior art within the patent document itself.

Methodology for Identifying Most Relevant Prior Art:

A technical patent analyst would typically follow these steps:

1. Access USPTO Patent Public Search: Use the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool (or similar databases like Google Patents) to retrieve the full patent document for US8613717.
2. Review "References Cited" Section: The patent document itself contains a "References Cited" section, which lists all prior art patents and non-patent literature considered by the patent examiner during prosecution. This is an initial, highly relevant set of prior art.
3. Analyze Examiner's Citations: Pay close attention to the citations made by the patent examiner, as these were deemed significant enough to warrant discussion during the examination process.
4. Analyze Applicant's Citations: The applicant also provides prior art during prosecution (e.g., in Information Disclosure Statements). These are important as they often represent what the applicant believed was the closest prior art.
5. Read and Understand the Prior Art: For each cited reference, read its abstract, claims, and relevant drawings and descriptions to understand its scope and technical details.
6. Map to Claims of US8613717: Compare the features of each prior art reference to the claims of US8613717, especially the independent claims (Claims 1, 10, and 18).
7. Assess Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Determine if any single prior art reference discloses every element of a claim in US8613717. If so, that prior art "anticipates" the claim, potentially rendering it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
8. Assess Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103): If no single reference anticipates a claim, consider if a combination of prior art references, or a reference combined with common general knowledge, would have made the invention obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

Prior Art Identified from US8613717 (Based on provided patent text):

The provided patent text for US8613717 includes a "RELATED U.S. APPLICATION(S)" section, which lists related patent applications. These are important for understanding the prosecution history and potential overlap in inventorship or subject matter, and can often be considered prior art depending on their publication dates relative to the priority date of US8613717.

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/187,121

  • Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/187,121 (filed Aug. 6, 2008)
  • Publication/Filing Date: August 6, 2008
  • Brief Description: This is a parent application, meaning it likely discloses similar or foundational aspects of the invention described in US8613717. The abstract of US8613717 states it is a continuation-in-part of this application, suggesting significant overlap in subject matter, particularly regarding systems and methods for removing undesirable material from the circulatory system.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given that US8613717 is a continuation-in-part of this application, many aspects of Claims 1, 10, and 18 might be directly disclosed in US 12/187,121, particularly the core concepts of a first and second cannula, a pump, and the method of removal and reinfusion. Without the full text of US 12/187,121, a definitive statement is not possible, but it is highly likely to anticipate at least some elements of the independent claims, and potentially the entire claims depending on the scope of the parent application.

• U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/015,301

  • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/015,301 (filed Dec. 20, 2007)
  • Publication/Filing Date: December 20, 2007
  • Brief Description: This is the earliest priority document for US8613717. Provisional applications allow an inventor to establish an early effective filing date without all the formalities of a non-provisional application. It would likely contain disclosures related to the initial ideas for the system and methods.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As the priority document, this provisional application is likely to disclose the foundational aspects of the invention. If the provisional application adequately describes the subject matter of Claims 1, 10, and 18, it could serve as prior art against any claims in US8613717 that are not sufficiently supported by the provisional filing date or that claim new matter. It is primarily used to establish the priority date for the claims of US8613717 rather than acting as prior art in the traditional sense against its own claims, but its content is crucial for assessing the validity of the claims based on the earliest filing date.

To provide a complete prior art analysis as requested, a full review of the "References Cited" section of the issued patent 8,613,717, as found on the USPTO website, would be necessary. This section typically lists all patents and non-patent literature that the examiner and applicant considered relevant during the prosecution of the patent application.

I'll start by retrieving the actual cited prior art references on the face of US 8,613,717, since the previously-generated Prior Art section did not actually obtain the "References Cited" list.

Let me try to pull the actual front-page citations and related family documents for US 8,613,717.

I now have the cited-reference list. Let me retrieve the full claim text and the complete reference list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,613,717

35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA), with KSR rationales

---

A. Corrections, contradictions, and scope flags (read first)

Per the operating rules, I flag the following before building the analysis:

1. The "Prior Art" section previously generated is incomplete and partly incorrect. It identified only the parent application (Ser. No. 12/187,121) and provisional (61/015,301) — both of which are the patent's own priority documents, not third-party prior art — and it expressly said it could not retrieve the "References Cited" list. I have now retrieved the face-of-patent citation list (see §C). This section supersedes that gap; I am not repeating the earlier material beyond flagging that its "potential anticipation" framing for the parent/provisional is the wrong frame (a CIP's own parent is a § 103/§ 102(b) risk only as to new matter, discussed in §B.2).

2. Claim-set contradiction (unresolved). The previously-generated summary states the patent has three independent claims — 1 (method), 10 (system), 18 (apparatus) — and describes claim 18 as an apparatus with a funnel and a "grate." A secondary source retrieved in this session (Justia's page for the same patent number, https://patents.justia.com/patent/8613717) displays a claim set in which claim 15 is the system claim (reciting "a powered fragmentation device in coaxial alignment with the pathway"), claims 11–14 depend from claims 10/12/1, and claims 16–27 depend from claim 15 — i.e., a different numbering and different claim scope (no independent apparatus claim 18). I am not auto-resolving this. It is consistent with a later claim set (e.g., an ex parte reexamination certificate or a certificate of correction) posted alongside the original. Both claim sets are analyzed below, and the discrepancy must be resolved against the USPTO Patent Public Search "Claims" and any reexamination certificate before any § 103 position is finalized.

3. Date contradictions. The task states the current date is April 26, 2026; the system context says 2026-09-25. The previously generated sections are themselves inconsistent ("as of April 26, 2026," "as of today, May 31, 2026"). I use the task date (April 26, 2026) for limitation-period purposes and flag that any § 315(b)/§ 315(a) calculations must be re-run.

4. Search-result finding relevant to the PTAB section (new, not a correction). A live search surfaced a PTAB docket reference to IPR2025-01025 (Imperative Care Inc.) in which Exhibit 1019 is U.S. Patent No. 8,075,510 B2 to Aklog et al. — the '717 patent's own parent — and in which the petitioner's expert testimony argues "Aklog alone," "Aklog and Garrison," "Aklog … combined with Goff," and "Laub." This does not contradict the prior finding that no AIA trial is on file against 8,613,717 itself; it shows the Aklog '510 patent being used as prior art in a proceeding involving a different patent owner. It is worth verifying, but it does not change the § 103 analysis below except to corroborate that Aklog '510 is treated in the art as citable prior art.

---

B. Governing legal standard and the critical date problem

B.1 Standard

Because the application (Ser. No. 13/084,694) was filed April 12, 2011 — before March 16, 2013 — pre-AIA § 103(a) governs. The inquiry is whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the invention. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the analysis requires an articulated reason with a rational underpinning; the reference need not be physically combinable as bodily incorporated; and design incentives, market forces, and "the effects of demands known to the design community" are probative.

POSITA profile for this art (our proposed definition, which should be established by declaration): a B.S. in mechanical or biomedical engineering (or M.D. with interventional training) plus ~3–5 years of experience designing or using intravascular aspiration/thrombectomy catheters, or equivalent; familiar with atherectomy, embolectomy (Fogarty), rheolytic and aspiration thrombectomy, and cardiopulmonary bypass suction/autotransfusion circuitry.

B.2 The effective-date / CIP "new matter" issue — the single most important § 103 fact

The '717 is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 12/187,121 (filed Aug. 6, 2008, issued as U.S. 8,075,510 on Dec. 13, 2011, published as US 2009/0163846 A1 on June 25, 2009), which claims benefit of provisional 61/015,301 (Dec. 20, 2007). The '717's characterizing feature relative to the family is fragmentation of the undesirable material (the title, abstract, FIGS. 2J–2K, and the claims all turn on it). The '510 patent's abstract and specification (as retrieved) recite suction cannula + funnel + filter + pump + reinfusion cannula with spaced distal ends — but do not recite fragmentation.

Consequences:

• If the fragmentation subject matter is not supported by the Aug. 6, 2008 '121 disclosure (highly likely, given '510's silence), then for claims 1, 10, and 18 (and the Justia claim 15) the effective filing date is April 12, 2011, and the June 25, 2009 publication of the family's own application (US 2009/0163846 A1) is § 102(b) prior art — published more than one year before April 12, 2011.
• Pre-AIA § 103(c) does not rescue this. § 103(c) disqualifies only subject matter that qualifies as prior art "only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g)." Art qualifying under § 102(b) is outside § 103(c), even though the '717 and the '510 share inventors (Aklog, Glennon) and a common ownership chain (Vortex Medical → AngioDynamics; see the assignment history). This is the classic CIP trap, and it means the patent's own parent publication can be the primary § 103 reference against the very feature the patent was filed to claim.

This is the strongest single obviousness theory available and it requires no third-party art at all for the core combination (it only needs some secondary reference or Official Notice for the fragmentation element).

---

C. The prior-art universe

C.1 References cited on the face of US 8,613,717 (U.S. patent documents)

Retrieved from the patent's "Referenced Cited" listing (FreePatentsOnline entry for 8613717; Justia entry for 8613717). Titles/dates are as listed at the source.

The listing also includes foreign patent documents and non-patent literature; the two NPL items appearing in this family's file (via the '510 listing) are directly on point:

• Greenfield et al., "Transvenous Removal of Pulmonary Emboli by Vacuum-Cup Catheter Technique," J. Surgical Research, vol. 9, No. 6 (June 1969).
• "F.A.S.T. Funnel Catheter Proximal Occlusion Embolectomy/Thrombectomy System," Genesis Medical Interventional.
• PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2008/072352 (the family's own ISR).

C.2 Family publications usable as prior art

C.3 Why this matters

The examiner's cited set is almost entirely (i) aspiration/emboli-protection devices, (ii) expandable-lumen/containment/funnel devices, and (iii) blood salvage / autotransfusion / reinfusion circuits. That is exactly the triad the '717 claims combine. In other words, the primary references on the face of the patent map onto the claim elements nearly one-for-one, which is the central problem for the patent.

---

D. Claim-element mapping

D.1 Claim 1 (method) — element mapping

D.2 Claim 10 (system) — element mapping

D.3 Claim 18 / Justia claim 15 (apparatus/system) — element mapping

---

E. The § 103 combinations

Combination 1 — Aklog '510/2009-0163846 (primary) + a mechanical fragmentation reference → Claim 1

Where each element is found: Aklog's own 2009 publication ("Systems and methods for removing undesirable material within a circulatory system," US 2009/0163846 A1) discloses the maneuverable suction cannula, the deployable funnel distal end, the filter device, the pump generating suction and reinfusion driving force, the reinfusion cannula whose distal end is "situated in spaced relation" to the suction cannula's distal end, and continuous suction-plus-reinfusion. It discloses every step of claim 1 except the step of fragmenting the material as it is drawn along the cannula.
Where the gap is filled: any one of the face-of-patent mechanical thrombectomy/maceration references — US 6,719,717 (Johnson et al., "Thrombectomy treatment system and method"), US 6,059,745 (Gelbfish, "Thrombectomy device and associated method"), or Addis' compliant framework family — or, alternatively, the atherectomy art and the admission in the '717's own Background (that "fragmentation thrombectomy" — breaking the clot into smaller pieces — is a known, thirty-year-old catheter technique).
Motivation to combine (KSR): (i) Same field of endeavor — intravascular clot removal. (ii) Same problem, expressly stated in the reference(s): the '717 specification itself frames the trade-off — a large-bore cannula risks "excessive fluid loss," while fragmenting the clot before capture causes downstream migration and the "no-reflow" phenomenon; the reframed solution is to fragment while capturing inside a closed, reinfusing circuit. (iii) Predictable result — mounting a known cutter at the mouth of a known aspiration catheter is "the mere arrangement of old elements" producing no more than the expected result. (iv) Design incentive / market force: the '717 specification and the NPL (Greenfield vacuum-cup catheter; F.A.S.T. Funnel Catheter) show a long-felt, recognized need to remove organized clot from medium/large vessels; combining suction with maceration to prevent clogging is an obvious engineering response.

Combination 2 — Aklog '510 + Evans 2001/0049486 + Vo 6,960,222 + Johnson 6,719,717 → Claim 10 (system)

• Aklog '510 supplies the first cannula, the pathway, the deployable funnel (measurably larger diameter than the pathway), the pump capable of simultaneous negative/positive pressure, and the second/reinfusion cannula.
• Evans 2001/0049486 ("Method and system for re-infusing filtered bodily aspirates") supplies the filter-with-pores + reinfusion architecture and the express purpose of avoiding fluid/blood loss — the very rationale recited in the '717 specification.
• Vo 6,960,222 / 2006/0041228 supplies the balloon-actuated, funnel-shaped distal occlusion element and, importantly, occlusion of the vessel proximal to the capture site (mapping onto the '717's balloon 33 occlusion/additional-suction embodiments).
• Johnson 6,719,717 / Gelbfish 6,059,745 supply the fragmentation device at the distal tip (blades/grate/coaxial cutter) that breaks the material as it enters the cannula.
  Motivation: All four are directed to the same class of problem (capturing and clearing material from a vessel without embolic or fluid-loss sequelae); combining a known aspiration/reinfusion platform with a known distal cutter is a predictable use of prior-art elements for their known function, with a reasonable expectation of success because each element functions independently of the others (KSR). The combined system would predictably do exactly what each reference already does on its own.

Combination 3 — Aklog '510 + Hart 5,846,251 + Addis (compliant framework) + Vo 6,960,222 → Claim 18 (apparatus)

• Aklog '510 gives the elongated tube, the pathway, and the deployable funnel.
• Hart 5,846,251 ("Access device with expandable containment member") and the Addis family ("Compliant framework") each disclose an expandable framework of ribs/strips covered by a membrane — the exact "plurality of strips pivotally coupled … with a substantially impermeable membrane extending across a space between adjacent strips" structure of claim 18. A membrane over an expandable rib cage is a classic, well-known combination (cf. any umbrella/basket filter in the very same field).
• Vo 6,960,222 / 2006/0041228 supplies the balloon-deployed funnel and therefore the claim's "mechanism positioned about a distal portion … upon actuation, can deploy the funnel" (the '717's balloon 33 + strings 34 / jacket 36).
• The grate in linear alignment with the pathway is supplied by the in-line cutter/macerator art (Johnson; Gelbfish) or by the '717's own admitted "apple-cutter"-type arrangement, which is a commonplace kitchen/industrial structure.
  Motivation: Each of the appended structures (ribbed funnel + membrane; balloon actuation; in-line cutter) is a known element deployed to its known purpose (capture, occlusion, comminution), and arranging them in series along one catheter is precisely the "predictable variation" KSR deems obvious. The Genesis F.A.S.T. Funnel Catheter NPL — a commercial funnel catheter with proximal occlusion for embolectomy/thrombectomy — independently corroborates that a funnel-tipped, occluding thrombectomy catheter was known and marketed.

Combination 4 — Dependent claims (filtration/grate/powered variants)

• Filter with pores sized to separate fragmented material (claims 13/26/27; Justia claims 12–13, 26–27): Strauss 5,158,533 (autotransfusion unit with filter), Evans 2001/0049486 (filtered aspirate reinfusion), and Aklog '510 (permeable sheet with sized pores). Combining a known thrombectomy aspirate line with a known in-line screen of selected mesh is routine and predictable.
• Powered fragmentation device; electrically/hydraulically powered; grinding (Justia claims 14, 15, 24–25): the entire atherectomy art (and the Johnson/Gelbfish devices) discloses motorized or fluid-driven rotary cutters/grinders coaxial with an aspiration lumen. Motivation: when a passive grate clogs on organized, fibrin-cross-linked clot — a problem the '717 itself describes as the reason organized clot resists thrombolytics — a POSITA would obviously substitute a powered cutter.
• Reservoir / rate-decoupling and independent vacuum source (Spec. FIG. 6): the cardiopulmonary-bypass/autotransfusion references (Vijay 6,852,280; Ito 6,946,099; Strauss 5,158,533) disclose a reservoir/collection chamber in a blood circuit that decouples collection from reinfusion. Motivation: the express purpose (avoiding volume mismatch and fluid loss) is the same.

---

F. Consolidated KSR motivation-to-combine rationales

A defendant/petitioner can articulate a single, unified motivation covering all three independent claims, because that is what KSR rewards:

1. Common field and common problem statement. Every reference cited on the face of the '717 and every reference in the family's own ISR addresses the same problem: removing obstructing material from a blood vessel without causing downstream embolization or blood loss. The '717's Background Art chapter is itself an admission of (a) catheter aspiration, (b) fragmentation/maceration thrombectomy, (c) proximal-occlusion funnel catheters, and (d) blood salvage/autotransfusion.
2. Known elements performing known functions. Funnel tips (Vo; Samuels; Hart; Aklog), occlusion balloons (Vo; Parodi; Hogendijk), expandable frameworks with membranes (Addis; Hart), filters of selected pore size (Strauss; Evans), blood reinfusion pumps and reservoirs (Evans; Strauss; Vijay; Ito), and coaxial cutters/macerators (Johnson; Gelbfish; atherectomy art) were all individually known. The claims are, at bottom, an ordered combination of these known elements along a single lumen.
3. Predictable results / reasonable expectation of success. No reference's function is altered by the combination; each performs the same function it performed alone. Under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
4. Design incentives. The '717 specification's own account of the "two obstacles: fragmentation and excessive blood loss" is a market-force/design-need recitation — precisely the "demands known to the design community" KSR treats as motivation.
5. The CIP trap. For the fragmentation limitations specifically, the § 102(b) publication of the inventor's own parent application (US 2009/0163846 A1, June 25, 2009) supplies everything except the cutter — and § 103(c) cannot disqualify 102(b) art. This alone may dispose of claims 1, 10, and (Justia) 15–27.

---

G. Counterarguments to expect, and the strength of each

A. Teaching away (the patentee's best argument). The '717 Background Art criticizes fragmentation thrombectomy: "the clot is broken into smaller pieces, most of which migrate further downstream … resulting in a 'no-reflow' phenomenon." The patentee will argue the prior art teaches away from fragmenting. Rebuttal: (i) the '717 claims fragment the material, so the patentee's own claim scope embraces what its Background disparages; (ii) the Background disparages fragmentation occurring downstream of the capture point / before capture, whereas the claims fragment as the material enters the cannula — a distinction of location, not of principle, that a POSITA would have seen as an available, known design choice (positioning the cutter at the catheter mouth); (iii) a reference does not teach away unless it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution — disparaging a different technique (pre-capture fragmentation) that causes a different problem (downstream migration) is not a teaching away from in-lumen comminution. This argument is weak-to-moderate for the patentee.

B. "En bloc" removal as the point of novelty. The specification repeatedly states that existing catheters fail because they "rely on fragmentation" and cannot "achieve a complete en-bloc removal." The patentee will argue that simultaneous suction + reinfusion + en-bloc capture was a new paradigm. Rebuttal: claims 19 (Justia) and the whole thrust of the specification's "en bloc" language are functional statements of result; to the extent the claims recite "without substantial fragmentation" they are indefinite/broad and, more importantly, the '717's own claims 1 and 10 require fragmentation, demonstrably inconsistent with the en-bloc framing. The asserted novelty resides in an admitted trade-off, not in an unexpected result. Note also that the Asserted Claims in the co-pending litigation (per the previously generated Litigation section) are said to focus on the "self-expanding funnel," which is squarely in the Vo/Samuels/Hart/Aklog prior art.

C. Unexpected results / long-felt need. If the patentee proffers evidence that combining suction + reinfusion + in-line fragmentation produced a synergistic improvement (e.g., the reinfusion flow itself helps draw material into the funnel — an express teaching of the '717 at FIGS. 2J and the corresponding text), that could support non-obviousness. This is the patentee's strongest substantive response and would need a factual rebuttal.

D. "Already considered by the examiner" is not a defense. The face-of-patent references were before the examiner. That does not immunize them — but it does mean a petitioner should lead with the applicant's own § 102(b) publication (US 2009/0163846 A1) combined with art the examiner did not squarely apply to the fragmentation limitation, plus a declaration on the POSITA's design incentives.

E. Secondary considerations. None are established on this record. The previously generated Litigation section shows an operating-company assertion against a competitor (Endovascular Engineering, D. Del. 1:26-cv-00469); commercial success of the AngioDynamics/Vortex product could support the patentee, but nexus to the claimed combination (as opposed to the funnel tip alone or the pump console) would be contestable. This should be probed in discovery.

---

H. Bottom line and what must be verified

Conclusion: On the face of the patent's own cited references and its own family publications, claims 1, 10, and 18 (and, if the Justia claim set is the operative one, claim 15 and its dependents) are vulnerable to § 103(a) rejection, principally through:

• Primary theory (strongest): US 2009/0163846 A1 (the applicant's own parent publication, § 102(b)) as to all elements except fragmentation, in view of a mechanical thrombectomy/maceration reference (e.g., US 6,719,717 Johnson or US 6,059,745 Gelbfish) or Official Notice, for fragmenting as the material is drawn along the cannula.
• Secondary theory: Aklog '510 + Evans 2001/0049486 + Vo 6,960,222 + Hart 5,846,251 / Addis for the deployable funnel + membrane + balloon-actuation + reinfusion system and apparatus claims.
• Tertiary theory as to the "powered … coaxial alignment" limitation (Justia claim 15): the atherectomy art, in which powered cutters are coaxial with an aspiration lumen as a matter of ordinary design.
• Corroborating NPL: the Greenfield vacuum-cup catheter paper and the Genesis F.A.S.T. Funnel Catheter — both commercial/printed-prior-art hits on the funnel-plus-occlusion concept.

Not verified in this session (must be checked before filing anything):

1. The operative claim set of US 8,613,717 (the contradiction in §A.2 — original 1–18 vs. the Justia 1–27 set). Retrieve the USPTO Patent Public Search "Claims," any ex parte reexamination certificate, and the file wrapper for Ser. No. 13/084,694.
2. The full text of US 12/187,121 as filed — needed to establish that the fragmentation disclosure is new matter (and thus that US 2009/0163846 A1 is § 102(b) art). Compare the '717 specification's FIGS. 2J–2K text against the '121 as-filed disclosure.
3. The inner disclosures of the references for which I retrieved only titles (4,921,478; 5,011,488; 5,092,839; 7,229,402; 7,713,227; 7,799,046; 2008/0041516). I did not read these specifications and cannot state with confidence what they disclose.
4. Whether the June 25, 2009 publication date of US 2009/0163846 A1 is correct and whether it is the earliest publication of the '121 disclosure (a PCT publication WO 2009/082513 A1 appears in the family and may have an earlier public date — verify).
5. The IPR2025-01025 docket (Imperative Care) reference surfaced in search — confirm the parties, the challenged patent, and whether Aklog '510 is being asserted as prior art, since that bears on the "no PTAB proceedings" conclusion in the previously generated section.
6. Whether any § 103(c) common-ownership relationship actually exists between AngioDynamics/Vortex and the Hogendijk/POSSIS references (it likely does not, but confirm).

Strategic note (not part of the § 103 merits): the '717 is asserted in AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Endovascular Engineering, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:26-cv-00469 (filed, per the prior section, April 23, 2026). If the complaint was served on or about that date, the § 315(b) one-year bar for the accused infringer would expire on or about April 23, 2027, and a § 315(a)(1) civil-action bar would already apply to Endovascular Engineering. Verify service date before relying on any IPR timeline.