Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 APRIL 2025

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc...

United StatesIntellectual Property

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that strategy to defeat institution in IRP2024-01256, Paper No. 10 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2025).

The patent at issue, United States Patent No. 11,774,691 ("the '691 Patent"), described and claimed a System for Treating Embolism and Associated Devices and Methods. Paper No. 10 at 3. The patent described "devices for the intravascular treatment of emboli and/or thrombi within a blood vessel of a human patient." Id. Importantly, the claims required that the device include a "coupled assembly with first and second chambers," "an aspiration chamber," and "a user-actuatable valve between the second chamber and the aspiration chamber," "wherein the valve is configured to be closed while negative pressure is generated in the first and second chambers." Id. at 8

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from