1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Bar No. 109506
`RAlSalam@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Telephone: +1.206.359.8000
`Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
`Amanda Tessar, Bar No. 33173 (admitted pro hac vice)
`ATessar@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
`Denver, Colorado 80202-5255
`Telephone: +1.303.291.2357
`Facsimile: +1.303.291.2457
`Daniel T. Keese, Bar No. 280683
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor
`Portland, OR 97209-4128
`Telephone: 503-727-2000
`Facsimile: 503-727-2222
`DKeese@perkinscoie.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`INARI MEDICAL, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`INARI MEDICAL, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:24-cv-03117-EKL
`PLAINTIFF INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF
`ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`PURSUANT TO
`PATENT LOCAL RULES 3-1 AND 3-2
`
`Imperative Care v. Inari Medical
`U.S. Patent 11,974,910
`Imperative Care Ex. 1042
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-3117
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rules (“PLR”) 3-1 and 3-2 and the Court’s Case Management &
`Scheduling Order providing leave to amend pleadings without motion (ECF No. 54), Plaintiff
`Inari Medical, Inc. (“Inari”) hereby serves on Defendant Imperative Care, Inc. (“Truvic”) the
`following Supplemental Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.
`Inari contends that the Symphony Thrombectomy System and/or structures within and/or
`for use with the Symphony Thrombectomy System (collectively “the Accused Products”) directly
`infringe the Inari patents asserted in this case: United States Patent Nos. 11,969,333 (“the ’333
`Patent”), 11,974,910 (“the ’910 Patent”), 11,554,005 (“the ’005 Patent”), 11,744,691 (“the ’691
`Patent”), 11,844,921 (“the ’921 Patent”), 11,697,012 (“the ’012 Patent”), 11,865,291 (“the ’291
`Patent”), 12,016,580 (“the ’580 Patent”), 12,109,384 (“the ’384 Patent”), and 12,156,669 (“the
`’669 Patent”). The ’333, ’910, ’005, and ’691 Patents are part of a family of patents related to,
`inter alia, thrombectomy systems using aspiration catheters to remove blood clots and thromboses
`found in large veins and the pulmonary arteries. The ’921, ’012, ’291, and ’384 Patents are part
`of a family of patents related to, inter alia, hemostasis valve designs for use with, inter alia, the
`types of systems described above. The ’580 and ’669 Patents are part of a family of patents
`related to thrombectomy systems employing aspiration catheters and interventional devices
`advanced through them, again with a focus on the removal of blood clots and thromboses found
`in large veins and the pulmonary arteries.
`Inari’s contentions are preliminary in nature, as discovery is ongoing, Inari has not
`completed its investigation of the facts related to this case, and Truvic has not provided complete
`product samples for Inari’s evaluation. Such samples, as well as documents due from Truvic,
`will contain information pertaining to the structure, function, and operation of the Accused
`Products. For example, Inari has not yet received from Truvic a complete set of documents and
`discovery responses regarding the structure and functionalities of all accused products, including,
`but not limited to, whiteboard print outs, design documents, sketches, laboratory notebooks or
`workbooks, research notes, invention disclosure forms, technical manuals, whitepapers,
`datasheets, user guides, engineering drawings, schematics, structural and functional
`specifications, design documents, test data, and instructions for use. In addition, Inari has not yet
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-3117
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`had the opportunity to depose any Truvic or third-party engineers and technicians, including
`without limitation Whipsaw engineers and technicians, who may be knowledgeable with respect
`to the relevant structure, function, and/or operation of the Accused Products.
`Moreover, the Court has not yet construed any of the asserted claims of the Inari Patents,
`nor have expert reports been submitted. Inari’s infringement contentions may ultimately be
`amended based upon the information revealed during discovery, the addition or withdrawal of
`patents and claims from the case, the Court's construction of the asserted claims, and the
`submission of expert reports directed to the issue of Truvic’s infringement. This disclosure is
`therefore provided without prejudice to Inari’s right to supplement and/or amend its disclosures.
`
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PLR 3-1
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Asserted Claims – PLR 3-1(a): Requiring identification of “[e]ach
`claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by each opposing party,
`including for each claim the applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. §271
`asserted.”
`As listed below, Truvic directly infringes the system and apparatus claims of the ’910,
`’005, ’691, ’921, ’012, ’291, ’384, and’669 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using,
`selling, and offering for sale the Accused Products. Truvic directly infringes the asserted method
`claims of the ’333 and ’580 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through its testing
`activities, as well as by directing its agents or contractors to perform procedures.
`Truvic additionally indirectly infringes the asserted claims of claims of the ’910, ’005,
`’691, ’921, ’012, ’291, ’384, and ’669 Patents under Sections 271(b) and/or 271(c) by inducing
`and contributing to doctors’ and other users’ direct infringement through their use of Truvic’s
`Accused Products, assembly of components of Accused Products into infringing structures, and
`performance of Inari’s patented methods of treatment, and/or by producing products especially
`made or adapted for assembly into infringing structures with no substantial noninfringing use. As
`listed below, Inari further contends that Truvic alone, and in combination with others, indirectly
`infringes the asserted method claims of the ’333 and ’580 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`inducing others (e.g., customers who are using the Accused Products and other end users of the
`Accused Products) to use the Accused Products to perform methods in a manner that directly
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`infringes these claims, and under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling, and/or importing
`components, materials, or apparatus that constitute a material part of the asserted method claims
`and that contribute to direct infringement by others (e.g., customers who are using the Accused
`Products and end users of the Accused Products) with the knowledge that the component,
`material, or apparatus is specially adapted for use in an infringement of the asserted method claims
`and that the component, material, or apparatus has no substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`PATENT
`
`11,974,910
`
`ASSERTED
`CLAIMS
`1-8, 11-15, 18-20
`
`11,969,333
`
`1-4, 6-12, 14-23,
`25-31, 33-38
`
`11,554,005
`
`1-7, 9-15
`
`11,744,691
`
`14-22
`
`11,844,921
`
`1-3, 5-7, 9-10
`
`11,697,012
`
`1-7, 9
`
`11,865,291
`
`1-8, 12-17, 19
`
`STATUTORY SECTIONS
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`Symphony System with
`24F and 16F
`telescoping catheters
`
`Symphony System with
`24F and/or 16F (117cm,
`and/or 82cm) catheters
`
`Symphony System with
`24F and 16F
`telescoping catheters
`
`Symphony System with
`24F and/or 16F (117cm,
`and/or 82cm) catheters
`
`Truvic hemostasis
`valves in Symphony
`System 16F and 24F
`handles
`Truvic hemostasis
`valves in Symphony
`System 16F and 24F
`catheter assemblies
`Truvic hemostasis
`valves in Symphony
`System 16F and 24F
`handles
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`PATENT
`
`12,016,580
`
`ASSERTED
`CLAIMS
`1, 5-6, 9-30, 33-34
`
`12,109,384
`
`1-4, 6-18, 20-30
`
`12,156,669
`
`1-5, 8, 10-12 14-
`19, 22, 24-28, 30
`
`STATUTORY SECTIONS
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c);
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b);
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`Symphony System with
`24F and/or 16F
`ProHelix Interventional
`Device(s)
`Truvic hemostasis
`valves in Symphony
`System 16F and 24F
`handles
`Symphony System with
`24F and/or 16F (117cm,
`and/or 82cm) catheters
`
`B.
`
`-- PLR 3-1(b): Requiring
`Identification of Truvic’s Infringing Products
`identification of, “[s]eparately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus,
`product, device, process, method, act, or other
`instrumentality (“Accused
`Instrumentality”) of each opposing party of which the party is aware.…”
`
`See table in Section A above. Inari identifies the Symphony Thrombectomy System as
`infringing the asserted patents (e.g., for the ’333, ’691, ’921, ’012, ’291, ’384, and ’669 Patents),
`identifies the Symphony Thrombectomy System with both 24F and 16F catheters as infringing
`the ’910 and ’005 Patents, and with 24F and/or 16F ProHelix device(s) as infringing the ’580
`Patent the Symphony Thrombectomy System. Discovery may show that additional or newer
`versions of Truvic products also infringe, and/or that Truvic’s products infringe additional patents
`or claims beyond those listed above.
`Inari requires more discovery on whiteboard printouts, design documents, sketches,
`laboratory notebooks or workbooks, research notes, invention disclosure forms, technical
`manuals, whitepapers, datasheets, user guides, engineering drawings, schematics, structural and
`functional specifications, design documents, test data, instructions for use, and other
`documentation sufficient to show the operation of the aspects and elements of the Accused
`Products identified above and in the claim charts. Inari reserves the right to supplement and
`amend its Infringement Contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`Claim Charts Demonstrating Truvic’s Infringement Of The Asserted Claims Of The
`Asserted Patents – PLR 3-1(c): Requiring “[a] chart identifying specifically where
`each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality,
`including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused
`Instrumentality that performs the claimed function.”
`
`Charts for each of the first set of Asserted Patents and Accused Products listed in the table
`above were previously served as Exhibits A-E and G-I (Inari has by its Second Amended
`Complaint removed its claims as to the ’011 Patent), and charts for the additional two patents
`added to the case through Inari’s Second Amended Complaint on February 7, 2025 are attached
`as Exhibits J-K. For each element of the Asserted Claims, the charts may provide just one
`example of multiple types or products and/or structures that meet the claim element. The charts
`are not intended to be exhaustive as to all products/structures that satisfy a given claim element
`of any claims asserted against Truvic; for example, the charts apply the asserted claims against
`the Accused Products, but discovery may show that other Truvic products infringe in additional
`ways, and the charts are not meant to include third-party products that also may infringe the
`Asserted Patents.
`Inari does not presently contend that any claim language of the asserted claims is governed
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`Inari reserves the right to supplement this response.
`
`D.
`
`Truvic’s Indirect Infringement Of The Asserted Claims – PLR 3-1(d): “For each
`claim which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an identification of any
`direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that
`contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar as alleged direct
`infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party in
`the direct infringement must be described.”
`Inari asserts method claims of the ’333 and ’580 Patents. Truvic induces infringement of
`these method claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) because it sells products in the United States
`capable of practicing the method claims and being used in the systems in the United States along
`with materials, documentation, instruction (including attendance at patient procedures by its sales
`representatives), setup, and installation services, which enable Truvic’s customers to directly
`infringe these claims by practicing the claimed methods. Truvic provides materials and personnel
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`that specifically instruct Truvic’s customers in the practice of infringing methods. Truvic was
`aware of both the ’333 Patent and the published application that matured into the ’580 Patent,
`which had claims substantially identical to claims of the ’580 Patent, before this litigation (see
`Section VIII below), and Truvic has indirectly infringed the ’333 and ’580 Patents after having
`such knowledge. Truvic engages in promotional, advertising, and instructional efforts that
`include, at a minimum, the maintenance and distribution of instructions for use, videos, guides,
`and/or manuals that instruct, direct, and encourage its customers and potential customers to use
`the patented methods of the ’333 Patent because the materials teach treating pulmonary embolism
`and/or deep vein thrombosis using the Symphony System by, e.g., advancing an aspiration
`catheter proximate to clot material, generating a vacuum pressure within a clot canister while a
`valve is in a first position, and then moving the valve to a second position to apply vacuum
`pressure to the clot material. Truvic also engages in promotional, advertising, and instructional
`efforts that include, at a minimum, the maintenance and distribution of instructions for use,
`videos, guides, and/or manuals that instruct, direct, and encourage its customers and potential
`customers to use the patented methods of the ’580 Patent because the materials teach treating
`blood clots using the Symphony Thrombectomy System by, e.g., advancing an aspiration catheter
`comprising an elongated shaft proximate to clot material, pre-charging a vacuum in a pressure
`source while a valve is in a first position, and then moving the valve to a second position to apply
`vacuum pressure to the clot material to aspirate a first portion of the clot material, and advancing
`an interventional device, such as a ProHelix, through the catheter and engaging a second portion
`of the clot material.
`Truvic is also liable for contributory infringement of the asserted method claims of the
`’333 and ’580 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because it sells the Accused Products, e.g., the
`Symphony System and components of that system, that have no other use, except to practice one
`or more of the claimed methods of the ’333 and ’580 Patents. Truvic is liable for contributory
`infringement, because the Accused Products are especially made or especially adapted for
`infringing use, and the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce that there are capable
`of substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Additionally, Truvic also induces infringement and is liable for contributory infringement
`of the asserted system and/or apparatus claims of the asserted ’910, ’005, ’691, ’921, 012, ’291,
`’384, and ’669 Patents. Truvic provides promotional, advertising, and instructional materials and
`information that include, at a minimum, the maintenance and distribution of instructions for use,
`videos, guides, and/or manuals, as well as the attendance of its personnel at patient procedures
`using the Symphony Thrombectomy System, that instruct, direct, and encourage its customers
`and potential customers to use its Symphony Thrombectomy System (i.e., their direct
`infringement). Truvic further sells Accused Products, e.g., the Symphony Thrombectomy System
`and/or components thereof that are intended to and are combined into an operational system that
`have no other use except to practice one or more of the claims of the asserted ’910, ’005, ’691,
`’921, 012, ’291, ’384, and ’669 Patents. The Accused Products are especially made or especially
`adapted for infringing use by incorporation into infringing structures, and the Accused Products
`are not staple articles of commerce that there are capable of substantial noninfringing uses. As
`discussed further below, Truvic has continued to engage in such activities after being notified of
`its infringement of the asserted ’910, ’005, ’691, ’921, 012, ’291, ’384, and ’669 Patents,
`including by Inari’s letter and by Inari’s Complaint (ECF 1), First Amended Complaint (ECF 20),
`and/or Second Amended Complaint.
`
`E.
`
`Doctrine Of Equivalents – PLR 3-1(e): Requiring identification of “[w]hether each
`limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally present or present under the
`doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality.”
`Inari contends that all elements of the asserted claims are literally present in each Accused
`Product. Inari has, in the alternative, identified certain structures that will infringe under the
`doctrine of equivalents, to the extent Truvic argues that the claimed limitations are not literally
`met by the cited structures. Inari further reserves the right to assert that any element that is not
`literally present in an Accused Product is present under the doctrine of equivalents. Inari may
`supplement to include explanation of the doctrine of equivalents based on the Court’s claim
`construction or the other orders of the Court, based on new information through discovery or
`other investigation, or in any manner consistent with the Scheduling Order and applicable rules
`including the PLRs.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`To the extent any claim is not found to be literally infringed, the claim is infringed under
`the doctrine of equivalents because (a) the accused product, method, or system has substantially
`the same overall function, operates in substantially the same way, and achieves substantially the
`same result or qualities as the product, method, or system disclosed in the patent claim; and (b)
`every element of the patent claim either is literally present or has some substantially equivalent
`corresponding element in the accused product, method, or system. For example, some of the
`Asserted Claims require elements such as one or more (a) “aspiration source” or “pressure
`source”; (b) “clot canister”; and/or (c) the tubular member extending along a first axis and
`member(s) of one or more actuators or members of actuators movable along another axis
`orthogonal to the first axis. All of these limitations of the Asserted Claims are literally met in the
`Accused Products. To the extent, however, that Truvic contends that the claim language
`corresponding to these limitations is not literally met (for example: if Truvic contends that the
`identified aspiration source(s) and/or pressure sources(s) are not literally met by the Asserted
`Claims, such as because the only aspiration source/pressure source is a single pump and cannot
`be part of both a first pressure source and a second pressure source and/or because the pressure
`sources/aspiration sources are limited to a syringe embodiment; if Truvic contends that the clot
`container of the Symphony System handles is not a clot canister; or if Truvic contends that the
`longitudinal axis of the tubular portion of the Symphony hemostasis valves is not orthogonal to
`the longitudinal axis of the motion of the actuator(s)’s member(s)), then the claim language is
`satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents because the Symphony Thrombectomy System and/or
`components thereof performs substantially the same function as the recited structure, in
`substantially the same way, to yield substantially the same result.
`
`F.
`
`Priority Dates – PLR 3-1(f): Requiring identification, “[f[or any patent that claims
`priority to an earlier application, the priority date to which each asserted claim
`allegedly is entitled.”
`The ’333, ’910, ’005, and ’691 Patents claim priority to and are entitled to the priority
`dates of Application No. 16/536,185 (Patent No. 11,559,382), filed on August 8, 2019, and
`Provisional Application Nos. 62/718,248 and 62/718,269, both filed on August 13, 2018.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’921, ’012, ’291, and ’384 Patents claim priority to and are entitled to the priority
`dates of Application No. 16/117,519 (Patent No. 11,000,682), filed on August 20, 2018, and
`Provisional Application No. 62/554,931, filed on September 6, 2017.
`The ’580 and ’669 Patents claim priority to and is entitled to the priority dates of
`Application No. 16/258,344 (Patent No. 11,154,314), filed on January 25, 2019, and Provisional
`Application No. 62/622,691, filed on January 26, 2018.
`
`G.
`
`Inari’s Products That Practice The Asserted Patents – PLR 3-1(g): “If a party
`claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to rely, for any purpose,
`on the assertion that its own apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or
`other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party shall identify,
`separately for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device, process,
`method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular
`claim.”
`Inari’s products practice at least the following asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
`Inari reserves the right to later amend this disclosure to identify additional claims practiced by
`Inari products, including based on Truvic’s interpretation of the claims or based on the Court’s
`construction of terms of the Asserted Claims. Inari products practice at least the following:
`
`PATENT
`11,974,910
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`1, 2, 6-8, 11, 15
`
`11,554,005
`
`3, 12
`
`10-11
`
`11,844,921
`
`1-3, 5-7, 9-10
`
`11,697,012
`
`1
`
`11,865,291
`
`1-2, 7-8, 12-14
`
`INARI PRODUCTS
`Inari FlowTriever with 16F and 24F, 16F and
`20F, and/or 20F and 24F Triever aspiration
`catheters
`Inari FlowTriever with 16F and 24F Triever
`aspiration catheters
`Inari FlowTriever with 16F and 24F, 16F and
`20F, and/or 20F and 24F Triever aspiration
`catheters
`Inari FlowTriever;
`Inari ClotTriever;
`Inari ProTrieve
`Inari FlowTriever;
`Inari ClotTriever;
`Inari ProTrieve
`Inari FlowTriever;
`Inari ClotTriever;
`Inari ProTrieve
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PATENT
`12,016,580
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`1, 5-6, 9-17, 30, 33-
`34
`
`INARI PRODUCTS
`Inari FlowTriever with 16F, 20F, and/or 24F
`Triever aspiration catheter(s) and FlowTriever
`catheter (disk device) or FlowTriever2 catheter
`(laser cut interventional element)
`
`Information and documents about the FlowTriever, ClotTriever, and ProTrieve can be
`found at Inari’s website https://www.inarimedical.com/, and were produced at least at bates
`numbers INARI_021684-INARI_023166 and INARI_023277- INARI_024530.
`
`H.
`
`Damages Period – PLR 3-1(h): “Identify the timing of the point of first infringement,
`the start of claimed damages, and the end of claimed damages.”
`
`As set forth in Inari’s charts, the damages period, to Inari’s current understanding based
`on representations of by Truvic of when it gained clearance and began marketing Symphony
`Thrombectomy System is March 2023-present. For patents that issued after March 2023, the
`damages period runs at least from the date of issuance (or sooner, in some instances, as permitted
`by 35 USC 154(d)) to the present. For instance, for the ’910 Patent, which issued on May 7, 2024,
`the damages period is from no later than April 24, 2024 (when Inari specifically notified Truvic
`of infringement of the then-allowed claims of the soon-to-issue ’910 Patent by letter) until the
`present. For the ’333 Patent, which issued on April 30, 2024, the damages period is from no later
`than April 24, 2024 (when Inari specifically notified Truvic of infringement of the then-allowed
`claims of the soon-to-issue ’333 Patent by letter) until the present. For the ’005 Patent, which
`issued on January 17, 2023, the damages period is at least from March 2023, when Truvic began
`to market the Symphony System, to the present. For the ’691 Patent, which issued on September
`5, 2023, the damages period is from September 5, 2023 to the present. For the ’921 Patent, which
`issued on December 19, 2023, the damages period is from December 19, 2023 to the present. For
`the ’012 Patent, which issued on July 11, 2023, the damages period is from July 11, 2023 to the
`present. For the ’291 Patent, which issued on January 9, 2024, the damages period is from
`September 29, 2023 (when Inari specifically notified Truvic of infringement of the then-allowed
`and later issued claims of Patent Application 18/142,518) to the present. For the ’580 Patent,
`which issued on June 25, 2024, the damages period is from September 29, 2023 (when Inari
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`specifically notified Truvic of infringement of the published claims of Patent Application
`17/498,642, which are substantially identical to issued claims that issued June 25, 2024) to the
`present. For the ’384 Patent, which issued on October 8, 2024, the damages period is at least
`from October 8, 2024 to the present. For the ’669 Patent, which issued on December 3, 2024, the
`damages period is from December 3, 2024 to the present.
`Inari additionally provides notice of its patents under Section 287 through its virtual
`marking webpage, found at https://www.inarimedical.com/inari-patents.
`
`I.
`
`Truvic’s Willful Infringement – PLR 3-1(i): Requiring identification, “[i]f a party
`claiming patent infringement alleges willful infringement, the basis for such
`allegation.”
`Truvic’s infringement of Inari’s Asserted Patents is and has been willful and intentional,
`with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and knowledge of, intent, and/or at least willful blindness
`of its infringement. Truvic has been aware of the Asserted Patents and its infringement of those
`patents at least since September 29, 2023, when Inari provided notice that the Symphony
`Thrombectomy System infringes Inari’s patents, including specifically that it was infringing
`patents from each of the three families Inari has asserted. Inari’s September 29, 2023 letter
`specifically raised and attached a copy of: (a) the ’005 Patent, (b) the ’691 Patent, (c) the ’012
`Patent, (d) the allowed claims of Application No. 18/142,518, later issued as the ’291 Patent, and
`(e) the published claims of Application No. 17/498,642, including claims issued in substantially
`identical form as the ’580 Patent. When, on January 15, 2024, Truvic finally responded as to the
`substance of the allegations Inari raised, after delays and refusing to provide a sample of the
`Symphony System, Truvic did not raise even a single noninfringement arguments for any of the
`Inari patents asserted in this litigation.
`Inari wrote Truvic another letter on April 24, 2024, informing Truvic of its infringement
`of additional patents, including: (g) the ’921 Patent; (h) the ’333 Patent; and (i) the allowed claims
`of Application No 18/342,553, which were later issued as the ’910 Patent. Inari’s letter also: (a)
`confirmed that a tear-down of a Truvic device obtained by Inari had conclusively demonstrated
`infringement of the ’921, 012, and ’291 Patents by the Symphony Thrombectomy System’s
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`hemostasis valves; and (b) disputed the validity arguments raised in Truvic’s letter, explaining
`that the prior art that Truvic cited had largely been expressly considered by the Patent Office.
`After this litigation began, additional Inari patents have continued to issue. The ’669
`Patent issued on December 3, 2024, and the ’384 Patent issued on October 8, 2024. On February
`7, 2024, Inari added these patents via a Second Amended Complaint. Truvic has been aware of
`the ’384 Patent at least since November 8, 2024 because Truvic included discussion of and
`attached the ’384 Patent to a petition for inter partes review that Truvic filed on November 8,
`2024. Truvic has had knowledge of the ’669 Patent at least since February 7, 2025, when Inari
`provided express notice via its Second Amended Complaint.
`Inari further alleges that discovery will show that Truvic was aware of Inari’s intellectual
`property relating to aspiration systems, hemostasis valves, and systems that employ aspiration
`and an interventional device, including without limitation one or more the Asserted Patents before
`receiving express notice from Inari, including because Truvic and Inari are competitors in the
`industry, Truvic monitors Inari’s patent filings and issuances, Truvic was and remains aware of
`and/or copied one or more aspects Inari’s patented devices and knew that they were likely to be
`subject to patent protection, and because Truvic has engaged in a practice of hiring persons
`employed by Inari and knowledgeable about Inari’s products, customers, and intellectual property
`in order to obtain a competitive advantage.
`Despite Truvic’s knowledge of the Asserted Patents and its infringement, including from
`correspondence with Inari, Truvic has continued to make, have made, use, sell, and/or offer to
`sell infringing devices, which constitutes willful and intentional infringement. This includes
`willful infringement following Truvic’s continued infringement after being served with Inari’s
`Complaint (ECF 1), Amended Complaint (ECF 20), and Second Amended Complaint (ECF 67).
`Inari may supplement these contentions to include further explanation regarding willful
`infringement based on new information through discovery or other investigation, or in any manner
`consistent with the Scheduling Order and applicable rules including the PLRs.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`INARI’S SUPPLEMENTAL PICS
`NO. 4:24-CV-03117
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO PLR 3-2
`PLR 3-2(a): “Documents (e.g., contracts, purchase orders, invoices, advertisements,
`marketing materials, offer letters, beta site testing agreements, and third party or
`joint development agreements) sufficient to evidence each discussion with, disclosure
`to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, or any
`public use of, the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the patent in
`suit. A party’s production of a document as required herein shall not constitute an
`admission that such document evidences or is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.”
`Inari identifies under PLR 3-2(