Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB: RapidPulse Thrombectomy Patent Held Unpatentable
Updated on Dec. 8, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team
Introduction
In a significant ruling for the medical device sector, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the invalidation of a key patent in the neurovascular thrombectomy space. The appeal, RapidPulse, Inc. v. Penumbra, Inc. (Case No. 24-1131), concluded with a swift Rule 36 judgment, leaving intact a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that found RapidPulse’s U.S. Patent No. 10,722,253 (“the ‘253 patent”) unpatentable. This case underscores the critical role of PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs) in modern patent infringement litigation. For patent attorneys and in-house counsel in the competitive medical technology field, the outcome highlights the vulnerability of patents to patent validity challenges based on prior art, emphasizing the need for robust prosecution and portfolio management strategies.
Case Summary
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RapidPulse, Inc. v. Penumbra, Inc. |
| Case Number | 24-1131 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Filing/Closure | Filed: Nov 8, 2023 — Closed: Oct 14, 2025 (706 days) |
| Outcome | AFFIRMED (Fed. Cir. R. 36) |
| Patents | US10722253B2 |
| Products | Aspiration thrombectomy system and methods for thrombus removal with aspiration catheter |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Latham & Watkins, LLP (Charles Sanders) |
| Defendant Counsel | Baker Botts LLP (Eliot Damon Williams) |
| Termination Basis | Unpatentable (Invalidity/Cancellation Action) |
Case Overview
The Parties: The dispute pitched two players in the stroke treatment market against each other. RapidPulse, Inc., the patent holder and plaintiff-appellant, is a medical device company focused on thrombectomy technologies. The defendant-appellee, Penumbra, Inc., is an established leader in neurovascular intervention. The clash represents a scenario of an innovative entrant asserting IP against an incumbent’s commercial product line.
The Patent(s) at Issue: The core asset was U.S. Patent No. US10722253B2 (“Aspiration thrombectomy system and methods for thrombus removal with aspiration catheter”). The patent relates to systems and methods for removing blood clots using cyclic aspiration. Analyzing the full scope and claim construction of this patent family is an important step, which can be aided by researching patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.
The Accused Product(s) & Commercial Stakes: The asserted patent took aim at Penumbra’s aspiration thrombectomy systems, a key product category. Allegations of infringement carried significant commercial stakes for both companies in the competitive stroke treatment market.
Legal Representation: The appeal featured leading intellectual property law firms. RapidPulse was represented by Latham & Watkins, LLP, while Penumbra’s defense was handled by Baker Botts LLP.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
The appeal was filed on November 8, 2023, following an outcome at the PTAB unfavorable to RapidPulse. The Federal Circuit’s review, culminating in a Rule 36 affirmance on October 14, 2025, brought the case to a close after 706 days. A Rule 36 judgment affirms the lower tribunal’s decision without a detailed opinion, indicating the appellate court found the decision legally sound under existing precedent. You can track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP to see similar procedural paths in other medtech cases.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36. This one-word judgment—”AFFIRMED“—upheld the prior decision of the PTAB, which had found the claims of the ‘253 patent unpatentable.
💡 Key Insight: A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is a powerful, succinct signal. It indicates the appellate court found the PTAB’s decision legally sound and not warranting a detailed opinion, which can discourage further appeals and solidify the outcome.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The Basis of Termination was Patentability (Invalidity/Cancellation Action). While the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 order provides no explicit reasoning, it affirms the PTAB’s finding that the patent was unpatentable. The PTAB’s decision was based on prior art challenges under U.S. patent law.
The strategic turning point occurred when the case moved to the PTAB. Shifting the battle to this administrative forum can change the dynamics of a patent dispute, as the PTAB applies different standards and procedures compared to district courts.
Legal Significance & Strategic Takeaways
This RapidPulse Penumbra patent case analysis reinforces several key principles in modern patent litigation:
- ⚖️ The Primacy of PTAB Proceedings: For defendants in infringement suits, a parallel IPR petition can be a decisive defensive weapon. A victory at the PTAB can neutralize the asserted patent.
- ⚖️ Federal Circuit Deference: The Rule 36 affirmance exemplifies the high hurdle for overturning PTAB fact-finding. Appealing a PTAB decision requires demonstrating legal error.
- 🔬 Prosecution Strategy Matters: The outcome underscores that patent durability is tested through the lens of prior art. For patent holders, this highlights the importance of building a strong prosecution record.
- 📊 Defensive Tactics for Accused Infringers: For in-house counsel, immediate evaluation of PTAB options upon receiving a complaint is a critical step. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP to inform defense strategy.
Industry & Competitive Implications
For the neurovascular device market, this ruling allows Penumbra to continue marketing its aspiration thrombectomy systems without the cloud of this specific patent infringement claim. It demonstrates that in densely patented fields, companies can challenge and clear patents through administrative review. This dynamic may influence competitive strategies in stroke treatment technologies. The broader medtech industry may note the continued effectiveness of the IPR pathway as a defense against patent assertions. For ongoing competitive intelligence, professionals should explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP.
Key Takeaways
- ⚖️ For Patent Litigators: A PTAB victory on invalidity can be case-dispositive. Developing a coordinated strategy across district court and PTAB proceedings is essential.
- ⚖️ For IP Professionals: Proactive auditing of key patents for vulnerabilities to validity challenges is a valuable risk management practice.
- 🔬 For R&D Teams: Early engagement with IP counsel to document innovation distinctions can strengthen patent positions.
- 📊 Future Outlook: The strategic interplay between district courts and the PTAB remains a central feature of U.S. patent litigation.
FAQ Section
What patent was involved in RapidPulse v. Penumbra?
The case centered on U.S. Patent No. US10722253B2, titled “Aspiration thrombectomy system and methods for thrombus removal with aspiration catheter.”
What was the basis for the unpatentable finding?
The PTAB found the patent unpatentable based on prior art. The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance indicates it found no reversible error in this conclusion.
This analysis is based on public court records from the Federal Circuit and PTAB proceedings. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes in patent litigation depend on specific facts and legal arguments. For legal advice on patent matters, consult qualified patent counsel.
Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP to gain insights from this and thousands of other cases for informed IP strategy.
You may also find these articles useful:
SiOnyx v. Samsung: Image Sensor Patent Case Settles
