RapidPulse v. Penumbra: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Thrombectomy Patent
RapidPulse, Inc. challenged Penumbra, Inc. over US10531883B1, a patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems and methods for thrombus removal. The Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying unpatentability ruling under Rule 36 — ending RapidPulse’s bid to enforce the patent after a 706-day appellate contest.
Federal Circuit seals RapidPulse’s fate on thrombectomy catheter patent
RapidPulse, Inc. filed appeal No. 24-1130 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 8 November 2023, seeking to overturn a finding that US10531883B1 was unpatentable. The patent in dispute — directed to aspiration thrombectomy systems and methods for removing thrombus via aspiration catheter — sits at the intersection of interventional cardiology and neurovascular device technology, a commercially significant space dominated by a small number of device makers including appellee Penumbra, Inc.
On 14 October 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the unpatentability determination without a written opinion. The Rule 36 disposition signals that the appellate panel found no reversible error in the reasoning below and deemed full written explanation unnecessary. For RapidPulse, the practical effect is decisive: US10531883B1 is cancelled and cannot be asserted against Penumbra or any other party going forward.
The 706-day duration from filing to disposition is consistent with moderately complex PTAB-origin appeals at the Federal Circuit, though the Rule 36 outcome — issued without substantive written opinion — suggests the panel viewed the patentability questions as well-settled on the record. What drove the underlying invalidity finding remains obscured by the absence of a merits opinion, leaving open questions about which prior art combinations or claim construction positions proved decisive at the trial level.
Filing to Unpatentable in 706 days
706 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — longer than median PTAB appeal timelines
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 ruling means for both parties
A Rule 36 affirmance: no written opinion, full legal force
Federal Circuit Rule 36 permits the court to affirm a lower decision by judgment without a written opinion when the panel finds the issues fully addressed by the record and no precedential value warrants elaboration. The affirmance carries the same legal weight as a fully reasoned opinion — the unpatentability determination is final and binding. RapidPulse cannot relitigate the same invalidity questions in a new proceeding.
No reversible error foundUS10531883B1 is cancelled — RapidPulse loses enforcement rights
With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, US10531883B1 is formally unpatentable and cannot be enforced. RapidPulse is foreclosed from asserting this patent against Penumbra or any third party. The only remaining avenue would be a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — a narrow and rarely successful path — or seeking reissuance of narrowed claims, which typically faces high scrutiny after a cancellation ruling.
Patent rights extinguishedPenumbra’s freedom to operate in aspiration thrombectomy is confirmed
Penumbra secured a clean result: the patent that posed an enforcement risk to its aspiration thrombectomy product line has been cancelled and that cancellation is now affirmed at the appellate level. Penumbra’s legal team at Baker Botts successfully defended the unpatentability finding across both the trial tribunal and the Federal Circuit. The company can now commercialise its thrombectomy systems without the overhang of this specific patent.
FTO confirmed for PenumbraAspiration thrombectomy IP landscape: one fewer barrier to entry
The cancellation of US10531883B1 modestly broadens the freedom-to-operate space for companies active in catheter-based thrombus removal — a market that includes both large medtech incumbents and emerging device entrants. Competitors should note, however, that RapidPulse or its successors may hold related patents or pending applications in the same technology family. A targeted FTO analysis covering the surrounding claim space remains advisable before product launch.
Monitor related patent familyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RAPIDPULSE, INC. | Company | Medical device IP claimant — holder of US10531883B1 covering aspiration thrombectomy systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PENUMBRA, INC. | Company | Penumbra, Inc. — interventional neurovascular and thrombectomy device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ashley M. Fry | Attorney | Counsel for RAPIDPULSE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Sanders | Attorney | Counsel for RAPIDPULSE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gabriel K. Bell | Attorney | Counsel for RAPIDPULSE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qiushi (William) Yao | Attorney | Counsel for RAPIDPULSE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Latham & Watkins, LLP | Law Firm | Representing RAPIDPULSE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eliot Damon Williams | Attorney | Counsel for PENUMBRA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Taylor | Attorney | Counsel for PENUMBRA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Oda | Attorney | Counsel for PENUMBRA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing PENUMBRA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 judgment — ‘AFFIRMED’ without written opinion — represents the most decisive outcome available to an appellant: the panel found the unpatentability determination below to be correct on the existing record and saw no basis for reversal under any applicable standard of review, whether de novo on legal questions or substantial evidence on factual ones. For RapidPulse, the absence of a written opinion forecloses any argument that the affirmance was narrowly reasoned or left any claim element unaddressed. The cancellation of US10531883B1 is legally complete.
US10531883B1 — Aspiration Thrombectomy System and Thrombus Removal Methods
US10531883B1 (application no. US16/516232) claims an aspiration thrombectomy system and associated methods for removing blood clots via aspiration catheter — a technique central to mechanical thrombectomy procedures used in ischemic stroke and pulmonary embolism interventions. The patent was granted to RapidPulse, Inc. and covers system-level and method-level claims directed at the aspiration and thrombus engagement mechanics of catheter-based clot retrieval, placing it squarely in the high-growth neurovascular and peripheral vascular device segment.
Aspiration thrombectomy is one of the most contested technology spaces in interventional device IP, with Penumbra, Inc. holding significant market share through its flagship aspiration platforms. A patent covering system and method claims in this space would, if valid, represent a meaningful barrier to competing product lines. The unpatentability finding — now affirmed — removes this patent from the competitive equation, but the underlying technology domain remains heavily patented by multiple parties, making ongoing FTO diligence essential for any entrant or incumbent.
Should you run an FTO against the US10531883B1 patent family?
US10531883B1 has been cancelled and is no longer enforceable. However, R&D teams and product managers developing aspiration thrombectomy catheters or related thrombus removal systems should not treat this cancellation as clearing the entire patent landscape. RapidPulse may hold continuation, divisional, or related applications claiming priority to the same disclosure that remain active. Similarly, Penumbra and other competitors hold extensive independent patent portfolios covering aspiration catheter mechanics, system integration, and procedural methods.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to map the full patent family surrounding US10531883B1, identify live continuation and CIP applications filed from the same priority chain, and benchmark claim scope against your specific device architecture. For aspiration catheter products approaching regulatory submission or commercial launch, a structured FTO review covering the surrounding claim landscape — not just this cancelled patent — is the appropriate next step.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10531883B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving medical device patentability
Federal Circuit PTAB-origin appeals involving aspiration catheter and interventional vascular device patents — cases comparable to RapidPulse v. Penumbra on invalidity and claim scope.
What this case signals for the interventional device IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability sends a clear signal: the prior art case against this thrombectomy claim was compelling enough to require no appellate elaboration.
Rule 36 outcomes offer no written precedent — but the cancellation is absolute
IP teams tracking aspiration catheter patents should note that the absence of a written opinion means no claim construction guidance emerges from this appeal. The cancellation of US10531883B1 is legally final, but practitioners cannot mine the decision for invalidity arguments against related patents. Independent prior art searches remain essential for adjacent claim sets.
Penumbra’s IPR/PTAB strategy at Baker Botts proved sufficient at every level
The unpatentability ruling was sustained through both the underlying proceeding and Federal Circuit appeal without modification. This pattern — where a well-constructed invalidity case survives Rule 36 affirmance — typically signals the record was built with appellate standard-of-review pressures in mind from the outset. Competitors facing similar enforcement actions should audit their anticipatory prior art positions early.
RAPIDPULSE v PENUMBRA — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US10531883B1 under Rule 36 on 14 October 2025. The court issued a judgment without a written opinion, signalling it found no reversible error in the underlying determination. The patent — covering aspiration thrombectomy systems and thrombus removal methods — is cancelled and cannot be enforced.
Federal Circuit Rule 36 allows the court to affirm a lower decision by entering judgment without a written opinion. It carries full legal effect — equivalent to a reasoned opinion — and signals the panel found the lower tribunal’s analysis sound on the record. For US10531883B1, the Rule 36 affirmance means the unpatentability determination is final and no further challenge to the patent’s validity is available through ordinary appellate process.
The patent at issue is US10531883B1 (application US16/516232), held by RapidPulse, Inc. It covers an aspiration thrombectomy system and methods for thrombus removal using an aspiration catheter — technology used in mechanical thrombectomy procedures for conditions such as ischemic stroke and pulmonary embolism. The patent has been declared unpatentable following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance.
Penumbra, Inc. successfully defended the invalidity challenge at both the trial level and before the Federal Circuit. With US10531883B1 cancelled, Penumbra faces no enforcement risk from this specific patent with respect to its aspiration thrombectomy device line. However, Penumbra and other market participants should continue monitoring RapidPulse’s remaining portfolio for related or continuation filings that may cover overlapping technology.
RapidPulse was represented by Latham & Watkins, LLP, with attorneys Ashley M. Fry, Charles Sanders, Gabriel K. Bell, and Qiushi (William) Yao. Penumbra was represented by Baker Botts LLP, with attorneys Eliot Damon Williams, Jeremy Taylor, and Mark Oda. The Federal Circuit panel issued its Rule 36 affirmance on 14 October 2025, closing the case after 706 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.