Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc.

Background

This patent-infringement case concerns mechanical thrombectomy systems, which are devices used to remove blood clots from veins. Inari’s operative third amended complaint asserts infringement of approximately 200 claims from eleven patents. Imperative Care asked the court to stay the entire case while inter partes review (IPR) proceedings took place before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inari opposed the motion.

Imperative Care had filed ten IPR petitions covering patents asserted in Inari’s original and first amended complaints. The PTAB had made institution decisions on four petitions, granting three and denying one. Imperative Care had not yet filed petitions concerning two more recently asserted patents, but represented at the hearing that it intended to do so.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied three main factors: the stage of the litigation, whether a stay would simplify the issues and conserve resources, and whether a stay would unfairly prejudice Inari or give Imperative Care an unfair tactical advantage.

The first factor favored a stay because discovery was at an early stage. The parties had not briefed claim construction, the court had not set a fact-discovery deadline or trial date, and there had been only limited expert discovery concerning two patents involved in Inari’s preliminary-injunction motion.

The second factor strongly favored a stay. The PTAB could invalidate some patent claims, clarify the meaning of important claim terms, and limit the invalidity arguments Imperative Care could later raise in the district court. The court also found that pausing a case involving approximately 200 asserted claims would conserve judicial and party resources.

The third factor was neutral or weighed slightly against a stay. The court recognized that Inari and Imperative Care were direct competitors and that the IPR proceedings were still at an early stage. But Imperative Care had acted diligently in filing its petitions and stay motion. The court also relied on its earlier finding that Inari was not likely to suffer irreparable harm while the case was pending and that any eventual harm could be addressed through monetary damages if Inari ultimately prevailed.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to stay in part and stayed the action in its entirety until February 4, 2026. The court declined to stay the case indefinitely or automatically until every IPR proceeding ended. It ordered a further case-management conference for January 28, 2026, and required the parties to file a joint case-management statement by January 21, 2026 addressing the status and significance of the IPR proceedings and whether the stay should be extended or lifted.