Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOSeptember 4, 2026·26-1552, 26-1922·Appeals dismissed; mandate issued September 4, 2026.

INARI MEDICAL, INC. v. IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

The Federal Circuit dismissed the agreed appeals under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.

Why It Matters

This order ends the PTAB appeals without any Federal Circuit ruling on the merits of the IPR issues.

Full Summary

INARI MEDICAL, INC. v. IMPERATIVE CARE, INC. [ORDER] The Federal Circuit dismissed the agreed appeals under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs. This order ends the PTAB appeals without any Federal Circuit ruling on the merits of the IPR issues. Appeals dismissed; mandate issued September 4, 2026. The order is nonprecedential and reflects a party-agreed dismissal. The appeals arose from two PTAB IPR proceedings: IPR2024-01157 and IPR2025-00156. The Federal Circuit did not address any patentability, claim construction, or other merits issue. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs and issued the mandate the same day. non-precedential waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction claim construction non-precedential waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction claim construction non-precedential waiver / forfeiture

Key Points

  • The order is nonprecedential and reflects a party-agreed dismissal.
  • The appeals arose from two PTAB IPR proceedings: IPR2024-01157 and IPR2025-00156.
  • The Federal Circuit did not address any patentability, claim construction, or other merits issue.
  • The court ordered each side to bear its own costs and issued the mandate the same day.
non-precedentialwaiver / forfeiturestanding / jurisdictionclaim construction
Read Full Opinion

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order. Read the document itself before relying on the summary. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity