• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00728 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 15–18, and 21–24 are also obvious over Hartley and Eller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2033 ¶ 61. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–54 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had first-hand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1037 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required). Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Id. at 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have understood such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience or study. Ex. 2030, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 28

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner cites intrinsic evidence in support of its interpretation, which include claim 1’s recitation of an “active tensioning mechanism” comprising the filament and the Specification’s description of a filament that can be both “loosened” and “tightened.” PO Resp. 14–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:36–37, 9:53–56 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator buttons are released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the buttons are pressed to open the valve)); see also Ex. 2025, 1288 (defining “tension” as to “tighten to a desired or appropriate degree”). These descriptions from the patent are more consistent with the view that the filament is characteristically flexible, not rigid. 10 We reached the same conclusion, based on substantially the same records, in the Institution Decision and the Final Written Decisions in the 1157, 156, and 289 IPRs. Inst. Dec. 14–18; Ex. 1042, 14–24; Ex. 1048, 16–23; Ex. 1049, 14–17 (noting the parties’ agreement at oral hearing that there was no additional argument or evidence about whether a filament requires flexibility that was not already addressed in related matters). After we construed the “filament” term to require flexibility at institution, Petitioner provided no further argument or evidence on this issue in its authorized trial briefing or at oral hearing. See generally Pet. Reply. embodiments (where the filament forms one or more loops like depicted and described in Figures 6–7) require a flexible structure. See, e.g., Ex. 2032, 15–16 (explaining that the device would not work to constrict the tubular sidewall and lumen (analogous to the elongate member defining a lumen of the claims here) if the filament forming the loop(s) was inflexible); Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7 (filament 150, with sub-filaments 150-A and 150-B). Although flexibility of the filament in the patent’s “bight” embodiments (e.g., as shown in Figures 8 and 9) is less clear, there is a dearth of evidence from Petitioner—either intrinsic or extrinsic to the patent—showing why a POSA would have understood the bights as embracing rigid structures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 8–9. Moreover, as admitted by Petitioner’s expert, that a filament may be made from various materials described in the patent (e.g., synthetics or metals) does not, absent more information, lead to a conclusion that a filament is “rigid.” Ex. 2030, 125:2–126:4 (testifying “the relative stiffness or rigidity is not clear from those . . . materials without knowing much more information”).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schaffer anticipates claim 1 or any of the other challenged claims, each of which requires at least one “filament.” We are unpersuaded above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,921 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,921
• Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Abtis Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 3, 2026 · IPR2025-00283 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled claim 11 and granted substitute claims 14–16, finding Petitioner had not shown those claims unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. In that regard, Patent Owner bears the burden of persuasion to show that: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter;” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In this case, Patent Owner’s expert “Dr. Zhou signed the second declaration, stood behind its contents, and was available for cross-examination.” Paper 35, 4. Petitioner does not dispute this statement. Paper 39, 1. Petitioner does not identify any specific undue prejudice caused by Exhibit 2008. For example, Petitioner argues that “the failure to impress upon a witness that a statement is under oath goes to the heart of its reliability as evidence” and that “as the Board has recognized, hearsay is inherently unreliable” without specifying what statement in Exhibit 2008 lacks reliability. Paper 39, 4. Because Petitioner does not provide specific evidence of undue prejudice, we find Petitioner has suffered no such undue prejudice in this case. See Liquidia, 2021 WL 4860773 at *25. We therefore deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude on the basis of lack of authenticity. With regard to the assertion that Exhibit 2008 is hearsay, Petitioner objects to the exhibit because the testimony is based “on other informal and unpublished documents that are hearsay under FRE 802.” Paper 29, 1. Petitioner does not specify what such “informal and unpublished documents” are. See id. Federal Rule of Evidence 703 expressly states, “[a]n expert may base an opinion on fact or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” The facts or data “need not be deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude on the basis of hearsay.” slip op. at 50

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive. Paragraph 59 of the ’503 application describes formula 8-1 but does not support Petitioner’s argument that other unknown formulas may be included in the recited modified heavy chains. Ex. 2003 ¶ 59. Petitioner’s hypothesis that the recited heavy chains may (or may not) encompass unknown formulas is also inapposite to the written description inquiry before us — that is, whether the inventor was in possession of the subject matter recited in claims 14–16 based on the disclosure including formulas 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3. See PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “These arguments in the Sur-Reply are unpersuasive to show a lack of enablement first and foremost because the arguments do not specifically provide evidence showing that any purported experimentation is undue. See Sur-Reply 2–8 (asserting, but without providing evidence under any specific Wands factors, that the examples and guidance in the specification do not extend to the broad scope of all antibodies); see Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. We again emphasize that the analysis of undue experimentation does not necessarily require every Wands factor to be explicitly addressed but the analysis must be based on “weighing many factual considerations” depending on the nature of the invention and underlying art. Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The assertion that the claim scope is broad alone does not suffice to show a lack of enablement based on the record before us. Moreover, as we note supra, Petitioner’s claim scope argument is based on the false premise that the scope of claims 14–16 is as broad as the claim term “antibody” without taking into account all other claim elements. For example, Petitioner does not disagree with Patent Owner’s statement that “[t]he ’675 Patent’s specification discloses the structural modification site, the chemistry used to modify that residue, and working examples demonstrating the modification” (Reply 2), but asserts only that “[t]he disclosure of SSFI that only binds to IgG1 Fc domains (SEQ ID NO:1) is . . . . inconsistent with the expansive scope of the claims.” Sur-Reply 5. Petitioner’s argument that the claims encompass proteins that lack a lysine reside at a 248 position improperly excludes from the claim language the “lysine residue at 248 position . . . [as] determined by the EU numbering system” that claims 14–16 require. As Dr. Zhou testifies, “each proposed lysine residue at position 248 (EU numbering) is covalently modified with a specific attachment with a terminal bio-orthogonal click-chemistry functional group. The specification describes targeted transfer of a chemical functional group to lysine 248” and when claims 14–16 are considered in their entirety, which includes all claim elements, “[a] POSA would understand the claim itself to limit the modified antibodies to those with lysine at position 248.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 48; Ex. 2008 ¶ 47. We also note that Patent Owner states “a POSA would understand that the phrase ‘one or more modified heavy chain’ encompasses antibodies within typical DAR distributions (i.e., fractional numbers) rather than requiring a distinct process for producing antibodies bearing modified heavy chains in exact integers.” Reply 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner states that PepTalk Presentation demonstrates that “a POSA would understand antibody conjugation products to exist as mixtures rather than discrete whole number species” because PepTalk Presentation “presents DAR values as non-integer measurements, i.e. DARs of 1.8 and 1.9 reflecting such distributions.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1007, 28). According to Patent Owner, “preparations having an average DAR of approximately 1.8 (commonly referred to in practice as ‘DAR2’) may reflect typical reaction distributions in which some antibodies contain two modified heavy chains while others contain fewer.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 46). Petitioner does not rebut these statements. See Sur-Reply 2–8. Based on the foregoing, the evidence before us does not show any” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,896,675 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,896,675
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2025-00156 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer combined with Hartley or Eller, with or without Garrison; anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over Schaffer alone were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose essentially the same formal educational background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience with any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 76. 10 Although unspecified in this proceeding, in the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner stated that the field of the invention is “hemostasis valves for use during intravascular procedures.” IPR2024-01157, Paper 13 at 22. engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:24–60 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. Furthermore, as pointed out by Petitioner and consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing relevant medical devices, including hemostasis valves. Pet. Reply 28; see, e.g., Ex. 1019 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required); Ex. 2006 (Thornton Tr.), 180:13–19. As Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Ex. 1019, 74:5–75:1; see also id. at 82:3–6 (testifying a POSA need not “have specific experience with different methodologies of hemostasis”). Lastly, a POSA would have had an understanding of such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience and/or study. Ex. 2006, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “1. “aspiration catheter” Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a]n aspiration catheter.” Ex. 1001, 22:10. Petitioner contends that, as a general rule, a preamble does not limit the scope of a claim, and that the term “aspiration” here merely describes a non-limiting “intended use” of an otherwise structurally-complete invention defined by the body of the claim. Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner responds that 11 In the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner moved to exclude Mr. Thornton’s testimony, which motion we denied. IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 at 70–72. Patent Owner filed no motion to exclude here. Owner’s arguments here.” PO Resp. 30. We need not further construe “aspiration catheter” as no dispute turns on that term’s meaning or whether it is limiting. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (explaining that claims need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve matters in dispute).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “That does not, however, resolve the dispute about “flexibility.” On that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. The claims support Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the first filament [is] formed into a loop around the collapsible tubular sidewall defining a valve lumen” and that “a diameter of the valve lumen decreases in response to reducing a diameter of the loop.” As Patent Owner argues, and as we recognized at the institution stage, the claimed filament “must be flexible to constrict the valve lumen.” PO Resp. 23; Inst. Dec. 15–16; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68 (testifying that a POSA would understand this property of flexibility is essential to achieving the claimed loop formation and function). The Specification supports this understanding. Consider the “loop” embodiments as illustrated in Figures 6 or 7. Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7. If the filament forming each depicted loop was somehow rigid, applying a force that seeks to pull the respective ends of the filament in opposing directions would not decrease the size of the loop—the loop would stay the same size and the filament would not circumferentially constrict and seal the elongate member’s lumen as described in the patent. Ex. 1001, 13:18–29.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s argument is unavailing. A steel beam or a plastic broom handle are longer than they are wide and yet conventionally rigid. And, specific to the subject matter here, as Mr. Thornton admits, machining the valve’s actuating members from plastic or metal, which Schaffer actually describes, would produce rigid members. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6; see also Ex. 2006, 152:8–10 (testifying a flexible aluminum wire would not be made from machining aluminum). Moreover, considering Schaffer’s cited drawings— Figure 32, in particular—does not show the actuating members changing shape or dynamically conforming to the outer surface of the seal module that those members are compressing, which, had that been shown, might indicate flexibility. Maybe the absence of any dynamic conformance of the surface of the actuating members is an unintended limitation or artifact of the drawing. Or maybe not, and what is shown is a rigid structure consistent with Schaffer’s other disclosures as already explained. We decline to find anticipation where Schaffer does not, with sufficient clarity and detail, describe a valve with a “filament” as claimed.21 Ultimately, on whether Schaffer describes rigid or flexible U-shaped actuating members, Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of the reference is more plausible and we find greater evidentiary support for Patent Owner’s position on this issue. Notwithstanding Mr. Thornton’s testimony in his rebuttal declaration that a POSA reading Schaffer would have understood 21 Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Anticipation requires that a single reference describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.”) (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). testimony on cross-examination was equivocal—he admitted “[i]t’s not clear” whether Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members are flexible or rigid. Ex. 2006, 115:16–23 (testifying “[t]he material properties of the U-shaped actuating members are not clearly defined in the Shafer [sic] application”). Dr. Zalesky, in contrast, has consistently testified that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer describes rigid actuating members. See, e.g., Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 66–74 (citing, inter alia, Schaffer’s illustrations of the valve in operation, and the disclosed manufacturing and assembly methods as indicating that “the actuating members 55 are rigid rather than flexible”).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,012 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,012
• Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01498 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the Lesniak- and Native-based grounds; the Squatch and Sturgis ground fails because Squatch was not shown to be a printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Squatch is a printed publication. As described above, Petitioner relies on Squatch as a “website excerpt” placed on its site at the relevant time, but has not produced a screen shot of the website to show that it ever existed. See Ex. 1059. Petitioner provides internal documents that purport to describe what would have been on Dr. Squatch’s website at the relevant time, but falls short of establishing what was on the website for the interested consumer to view. Thus, we determine that this ground fails.” slip op. at 55

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications at this stage of the proceeding. PO Resp. 10. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA, which is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art. See e.g., Exs. 1003, 1004.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a secondary wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that Lesniak teaches how to make stable compositions by including a secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Id. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Pet. Reply 6 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Lesniak provides sufficient disclosure to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate deodorant stick within the parameters of claim 1.” slip op. at 25

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the preamble of independent claims 1, 16, and 19 reciting “a deodorant stick” is limiting as it provides antecedent basis for the recitation of “said deodorant stick being free of an aluminum salt” for each independent claim. PO Resp. 7–10. Patent Owner also points to dependent claims 6–9 as relying on the preamble reciting “a deodorant stick” as antecedent basis for claim elements. Id. at 9. We agree. Petitioner does not argue to the contrary. See, e.g., Pet. 19 (arguing that Lesniak discloses a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,752 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,752
• Preomics GmbH / Biognosys AG. v. The Brigham And Women’S Hospital, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Cai; claims 2, 3, 7, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner and again find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficient for the reasons explained in the Decision on institution. See Dec. 8–10. As explained before, the formal training required by Petitioner’s description of a POSA includes understanding of both proteins and analytical techniques for studying them. See Dec. 9. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. Cimas, clearly articulates a competing POSA description at trial, but both suggest more formal training, e.g., a graduate degree, is required. See Resp. 65–66; Ex. 2023 ¶ 8 (agreeing with our observation that the educational backgrounds of the inventors and authors of Cai, Zaccaria, and Hu “suggests that a graduate degree is more typical for a POSA”) (quoting Dec. 9, n. 5). Even if we were to accept that modification, it would not change our findings herein. Nor does it suggest that Dr. Vargas, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Stanford University and has substantial experience with mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques, is unqualified to testify from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1004 (Vargas CV). Accordingly, our findings and conclusions would be the same, even assuming the perspective of a POSA possessing the higher level of formal training and specific proteomics experience that Patent Owner suggests is appropriate here.5” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1001, 20:33–39. As Petitioner points out, the first sentence in this passage does not define the term “biological sample,” but rather the term “sample.” Id. According to that sentence, the term “sample” refers to either “a biological sample or a complex biological sample obtained from a subject.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument assumes, without explanation, that the phrase “obtained from a subject” modifies both instances of “biological sample” in the first sentence. Id. But it need not be read that way. Indeed, that sentence is more naturally read to define “sample” as one of two things––either a “biological sample” or a “complex biological sample” with only the latter being “obtained from a subject.” Id. In addition, the second sentence in the passage above supports Petitioner’s view that the term “biological sample” is not limited to a sample obtained directly from a subject. It provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of “[s]uitable biological samples” that specifically includes the types of biological samples, i.e., “cell lysates,” “systemic blood,” “plasma,” assayed in Petitioner’s cited references. Ex. 1001, 20:36–39. It also lists as an example “processed tissue samples,” which would include samples that have been modified (i.e., “processed”) from the form in which they were originally obtained. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 20:52–57 (describing tissue processing). Given this broad description, we agree with Petitioner that there is no basis in the cited intrinsic evidence for reading in the “negative limitations” Patent Owner seeks to try to distinguish the particular biological samples assayed in Cai, Hu, and Zaccaria. See Reply 3–4.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Step 1(a) recites forming coronas around a plurality of particles of “different particle types.” Ex. 1001, 86:53–60. Step 1(b) recites separating a “subset of the plurality of the particles comprising the coronas.” Id. at 86:61–65. As Petitioner correctly observes, as a matter of ordinary English parlance, “there is no requirement whatsoever that the ‘subset’ have all of the same characteristics as the set from which it is separated.” Reply 10. By way of analogy, consider a jar containing a plurality of coins of different coin types, e.g., nickels and dimes. One can separate out a “subset” of that plurality of coins (plural) by removing any two coins from the jar—this is true even if the two coins are both nickels or both dimes. In the same way, nothing in the ordinary meaning of the claim language requires the subset in step 1(b) to include particles with coronas representative of each of the different particle types in step 1(a). Nor has Patent Owner identified any other evidence that supports its attempt to read such a requirement into the claims. See Resp. 16, 18 (citing expert testimony that is not inconsistent with the broader, ordinary meaning of the claim language and, even if it was, would not be a proper basis for limiting the same). For these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a subset of the plurality of particles comprising the coronas” in step 1(b) as limited to a subset of each type of particle comprising the coronas formed in step 1(a).” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We credit Petitioner’s showing above and agree that Cai discloses a method comprising all of the steps in claim 1. Beginning with step 1(a), Cai discloses contacting two different particle types, i.e., MWCNT and CB, with HeLa cell lysate (i.e., a biological sample) to form protein coronas around those particles. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–206; Ex. 1005, Abstr. (describing MWCNT and CB as distinct “forms of carbon nanoparticles” that bind “vastly different sets of proteins”). Cai’s results show the coronas formed around the MWCNT and CB particles comprise overlapping and distinct proteins as recited in step 1(a). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 216–222; Ex. 1005, 587 (“a small number of CB-binding proteins also bind to MWCNTs”). A subset of the proteins from the coronas on these particles is then prepared by eluting the bound proteins and analyzing them with SDS-PAGE in a MWCNT and CB “pull-down,” which reads on step 1(b). Ex. 1005, 586 (Fig. 1A–B depicting scheme for “pull-down experiment” and describing other “pull-down experiments” used with SILAC media in Fig. 3), 588 (Fig. 3). Regarding step 1(c), Cai discloses assaying the proteins in those subsets using LC-MS/MS with SILAC encoding to characterize and quantify the relative abundance of the proteins that bind to each type of particle.11 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229; Ex. 1005, 586–587 (describing “systemic characterization of carbon nanoparticle-protein corona”), 588 (Fig. 3). Cai’s results show “the relative abundance of the MWCNT-binding proteins spread over 8 orders of magnitude” and that “some of the proteins with the highest binding efficiencies” are actually “low abundance proteins” in the lysate, meaning that that Cai’s method selectively enriches such proteins for detection. Ex. 1005, 587. We credit Dr. Vargas’s testimony that these results demonstrate that Cai’s method achieves the “dynamic range” recited in step 1(c). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,435,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,360
• Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01378 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as anticipated by Svihra or obvious over the asserted combinations; the cited non-patent references qualify as printed publications.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Legal Standards Anticipation A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only when “every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, a reference may inherently anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “(citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Of particular relevance to the case presently before us is the VidStream court’s holding that “[w]hen there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1065. Hulu addressed, inter alia, whether certain asserted references were shown to be publicly available and could be considered as prior art. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 8. In Hulu, the Board held that, although testimonial evidence is one way to prove public accessibility, there are also various indicia of publication and other evidence that may be considered as a totality of the evidence to determine if an asserted reference was publicly accessible and prior art. Id. at 18. Facts to be considered in analyzing the issue, other than testimonial evidence, include, for example, whether there is an established publisher, a copyright date/notice, other publication-related dates (impression, printing, etc.), an ISBN number, citations to the reference before (and to a lesser degree, after) the priority date at issue corroborating its availability and/or that the publisher was established. Id. at 19–20 (see Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Here, we find the totality of evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Svihra and Amarenco (as well as the other identified non-patent references) were printed publications, and publicly accessible, prior to the ’477 patent’s priority date. We note at the outset that Patent Owner does not allege that any contested reference is fabricated, or a counterfeit document, but only that Petitioner has not set forth sufficient facts establishing that such references were published and available. Resp. 4. Svihra bears sufficient indicia of publication to conclude it was a printed publication and publicly accessible as of 2002. Ex. 1004. First, it appears on its face to be a legitimate scientific journal article; it indicates it was included at pages 480–83 in volume 103 (No. 12) of Bratisl Lek Listy, the Bratislava Medical Journal, which was established in 1921. The article identifies that it was received for publication on May 30, 2002, and accepted for publication on December 9, 2002; and multiple means of contact for the author and publisher are provided. Id. at 480, 483. Each of these indicia supports the contention that Svihra was published and publicly available in 2002. There is no direct evidence that Svihra was publicly accessed as of this date, but the article is cited as a reference in each of Exhibits 1085–1087, which further supports that Svihra was, generally, publicly available to interested individuals of ordinary skill in the art, which further corroborates that it was a published and publicly accessible publication. Having an established publisher also creates a presumption of publication for Svihra, which has not been rebutted by Patent Owner. VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1065.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner also explains why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the cited references, again citing specific disclosures from the references, and the supporting testimony of Dr. Wingeier. See Pet. at 27–28. Based on our review of Petitioner’s arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cited references teach or suggest all of the limitations of challenged claim 1, and that Petitioner has established why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references, as proposed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons advocated by Petitioner with respect to Ground 2.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and the level of skill in the prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition and additionally use the term “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,002,477 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,002,477
• Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01375 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Svihra, Mann, and Ponsford, and independently over Amarenco, Mann, and Ponsford.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Ex. 1001, claim 1. In other words, to effectuate “direct” stimulation of the PTN nerve branch, a practitioner of the ’742 patent must: (1) non-invasively position an electrical stimulator relative to a portion of a patient’s body, such that a branch of a posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of the body is directly targeted by the electrical stimulator; (2) passing a current through the electrical stimulator; and (3) delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator to the branch of the posterior tibial nerve such that the branch directly receives the electrical stimulation. Merely “placing electrodes over branches of the PTN” cannot be said, in and of itself, to “directly” target and stimulate the branches, as Petitioner argues.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of filing “would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering or a related discipline, such as electrical engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt this definition, and also use the term “skilled artisan” to refer to persons with such skill at the time the invention was filed.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “the evidence of record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Svihra by non-invasively stimulating a nerve branch of the PTN, e.g., the medial or lateral plantar nerves, as taught by Ponsford, to treat OAB/urinary incontinence. A skilled artisan would have understood that the fibers of a given branch of the PTN necessarily constitute a subset of the PTN fibers, stimulation of which is known to be effective in the treatment of OAB/urinary incontinence. See Ex. 1004, 480–481. Just as it was known in the art that stimulation of the much larger sacral nerve, of which the fibers of the PTN form a part, could have beneficial effects in the treatment of incontinence, and that stimulation of the PTN itself could have a similar effect (see Ex. 1084, col. 12, ll. 33–52), so, a skilled artisan could reason, might electrical stimulation of a branch of the PTN exert a similar effect. We also agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stimulate a smaller nerve branch of the PTN, rather than the entire PTN itself, so as to minimize undesirable side effects of stimulating the entire PTN, i.e., the recruitment of downstream muscular contraction, as taught by Mann. With respect as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the treatment of OAB/incontinence via stimulation of a branch of the PTN, rather than the entire PTN itself, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art, would understand from Mann that electrical stimulation of the larger, more central sacral nerve could be employed to treat OAB/urinary incontinence, and that a subset of those PTN fibers could be electrically stimulated to achieve a similar effect. See Ex. 1084, col. 12, ll. 33–52. Such a skilled artisan could similarly reason that a subset of those PTN fibers, i.e., a branch of the PTN, particularly major branches such as the plantar nerves, could also be similarly electrically stimulated to treat OAB/urinary incontinence. Although success in such an experiment would not be guaranteed, “only a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability, is necessary for a conclusion of obviousness.” In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,224,742 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,224,742
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01157 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller, though Schaffer alone did not anticipate and Hartley with Eller did not show claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68. We also find that a POSA would have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:21–57 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing”” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Schaffer’s valve to include a single flexible string or wire that replaces the two U-shaped actuating members would have been seen by the POSA as potentially advantageous—giving further reason for the POSA to have made that change. Pet. 35–36. We credit Mr. Thornton’s testimony that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members may into the lumen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. On the other hand, a POSA would have recognized that a single flexible string or wire that is looped completely around the exterior of the seal module/lumen would provide more uniform constriction and compression around the outer diameter of some commonlyused tools and including tools with diverse shapes and sizes. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–88, 93–100. We observed this same reason for modifying the art at institution and, after considering the full trial record, our view has not changed. Inst. Dec. 37 (preliminarily finding that a POSA would have considered Hartley’s string or Eller’s wire “as providing expected benefits insofar as such a filament may more precisely and uniformly constrict a lumen against inserted tools of different sizes and shapes”). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Zalesky, does not disagree that a flexible string or wire would have carried this advantage. Ex. 2008 ¶ 75 (testifying a “filament changes shape dynamically, allowing for better adaptability to the contours of the valve lumen as it is constricted”);21 Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 86:19–87:4 (testifying that POSAs in 2017 would have recognized that the “cinching” effect provided by a filament would have been more effective for large-bore catheters based on “simple mechanical engineering and physics”). And, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner agreed that using Hartley’s string in Schaffer would help eliminate potential fluid gaps; but Patent Owner qualified its answer that such a benefit would allegedly only have arisen if “the highly-compliant” seal member material in Schaffer was removed,” slip op. at 53

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. On balance, the evidence supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the filament circumferentially constricts the lumen to create a seal,” which Dr. Zalesky opines a POSA would have understood as implying a flexible structure. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 71–76 (testifying, inter alia, that “[t]o ‘circumferentially constrict,’ the filament must be flexible and extend circumferentially about the lumen” such that “the filament will adapt to the shape of the lumen as the lumen is constricted and thus ‘circumferentially constrict’ the lumen as recited in Claim 1”).12 The Specification also describes the filament as being selectively “tightened” and “loosened” about the elongate member. Ex. 1001, 9:37–40, 9:55–59 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator is released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the actuator is pressed to open the valve)). Dr. Zalesky opines that a POSA would have understood the patent’s description of” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “challenge fails on this record whether the clearer prosecution drawings in Exhibit 1008 are considered in the analysis of anticipation by Schaffer, or not. Whether those prosecution drawings are considered “extrinsic evidence” to Schaffer (as argued by Patent Owner) or publicly-available “intrinsic evidence” with respect to Schaffer (as Petitioner argues) does not change our Decision on Ground 1. Opp. 10–11; Mot. Reply, 3–5. Patent Owner’s motion is, therefore, moot as to Ground 1.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,011 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,011
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00989 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims based on the asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Schaffer-Hartley and Schaffer-Eller combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. For reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’291 patent’s challenged claims. We institute inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Findings and conclusions at this stage are preliminary and based on the current record. Any final decision will be based on a full trial record.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing or engineering any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 36; Ex. 2001 ¶ 73. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:24–60 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1029 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required); Ex. 2006 (Thornton Tr.), 180:13–19. Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Ex. 1029, 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have had an” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “As noted above, the challenged claims require a “filament formed in a loop around the tubular sidewall” where, when a portion of the filament is pulled away from the loop, the loop’s diameter reduces, thereby reducing the diameter of the lumen formed by the tubular sidewall to seal the valve. See supra Section II.D. Every embodiment in the ’291 patent where the filament is described as forming a “loop” in the manner claimed involves a filament that is necessarily flexible. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:17–29, Figs. 6–7. The valve would not work if the looped filament were somehow inflexible— pulling an end of the filament would not change the diameter of the loop, and the valve would not seal. Ex. 2001 ¶ 65 (testifying “a loop in a rigid component would necessarily be fixed in size” and the “inherent property of flexibility is essential to the loop structure of the claims”); Ex. 1023, 16–17” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unpersuaded that Schaffer describes a valve with a filament as claimed. If, as construed above (supra Section III.C), the filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes such a feature in its valves. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that a POSA would more likely understand Schaffer’s two U-shaped actuating members as being rigid features. Prelim. Resp. 33–36. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner implicitly admits that Schaffer’s actuating members are rigid leakage around tools inserted through the central lumen when in use and compared to the use of a flexible string or wire (of Hartley or Eller). Prelim. Resp. 34 (citing Pet. 51). We also find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more plausible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being rigid structures. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 78–85 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton opines that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 96. Such opinion invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Furthermore, Mr. Thornton’s opinion that a POSA “would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members would have preferably been formed from a thin, flexible material” finds no support in Schaffer itself. Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. This opinion is also at odds with his testimony in related cases about an alleged formation of gaps with Schaffer’s actuating members, which suggested those members had a set “size” and lacked flexibility. See IPR2025-01157 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 81 (testifying a POSA “would have recognized that Hartley’s flexible string may better seal the valve than Schaffer’s metallic/plastic actuating members” because, “if a tool did not fit the size of” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,865,291
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00728 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on at least one claim, including claim 1 over Hartley and Eller.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. For reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’921 patent’s challenged claims.1 We institute inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Findings and conclusions at this stage are preliminary and based on the current record. Any final decision will be based on a full trial record.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing or engineering any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2024 ¶ 61. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–54 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1037 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required); Ex. 2030 (Thornton Tr.), 180:13–19. Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Ex. 1037, 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have had an understanding of such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience and/or study. Ex. 2030, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “That does not, however, address the dispute about “flexibility.” On that issue, the argument and evidence at this stage tends to favor Patent Owner’s position that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. which include claim 1’s recitation of an “active tensioning mechanism” comprising the filament and the Specification’s description of a filament that can be both “loosened” and “tightened.” Prelim. Resp. 14–16 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:36–37, 9:53–56 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator buttons are released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the buttons are pressed to open the valve)); see also Ex. 2025, 1288 (defining “tension” as to “tighten to a desired or appropriate degree”). These descriptions from the patent appear at this stage more consistent with the view that the filament is characteristically flexible, not rigid. So too, as we explained in related matters, the ’921 patent’s loop embodiments (where the filament forms one or more loops like depicted and described in Figures 6–7) require a flexible structure. See, e.g., Ex. 2032, 15–16 (explaining that the device would not work to constrict the tubular sidewall and lumen (analogous to the elongate member defining a lumen of the claims here) if the filament forming the loop(s) was inflexible); Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7 (filament 150, with sub-filaments 150-A and 150-B). Although flexibility of the filament in the patent’s “bight” embodiments (e.g., as shown in Figures 8 and 9) is not manifestly clear, there is a dearth of evidence from Petitioner—either intrinsic or extrinsic to the patent— showing why a POSA would have understood the bights as embracing rigid structures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 8–9 (similar to the loop embodiments, depicting structures 150-A and 150-B forming sub-filaments of the bight(s)). Moreover, as admitted by Petitioner’s expert, that a filament may be made from various materials described in the patent (e.g., synthetics or metals) does not, absent more information, lead to a conclusion that a filament is “rigid.” Ex. 2030, 125:2–126:4 (testifying “the relative stiffness or rigidity” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the current record, we are unpersuaded that Schaffer describes a valve with a filament as claimed. If, as construed above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes such a feature in its valves. Instead we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner “implicitly admits” that Schaffer’s actuating members are rigid insofar as Petitioner argues those members would form gaps for fluid leakage around tools inserted through the central lumen when in use and compared to the use of a flexible string or wire (of Hartley or Eller). Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Pet. 36). Moreover, we find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more plausible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 92–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that the “test for novelty” requires “strict identity”); Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 756 F.2d 1556, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding “anticipation is not shown by a prior art disclosure which is only ‘substantially the same’ as the claimed invention”), overruled on other grounds, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Because we determine on this preliminary record that Schaffer does not describe a valve comprising a “filament” as claimed, Schaffer cannot anticipate the challenged claims.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,921

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.