RapidPulse v. Penumbra: Federal Circuit Affirms Thrombectomy Patent Unpatentable
RapidPulse, Inc. appealed an invalidity ruling over US10722253B2, a patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems and catheter-based clot removal methods, against Penumbra, Inc. The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on October 14, 2025, ending the appeal after 706 days without a written opinion.
Federal Circuit ends RapidPulse’s thrombectomy patent challenge with Rule 36 affirmance
RapidPulse, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 8, 2023, challenging a finding that US10722253B2 — its patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems and methods for catheter-based thrombus removal — was unpatentable. The respondent, Penumbra, Inc., is a competing vascular intervention device company. Represented by Latham & Watkins, RapidPulse sought to reverse the underlying invalidity or cancellation determination that extinguished its patent rights.
On October 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, confirming the unpatentability finding without issuing a written opinion. A Rule 36 judgement signals that the appellate panel found no reversible error warranting extended analysis — the lower tribunal’s reasoning was sufficiently sound to sustain on its face. For RapidPulse, the ruling terminates patent protection for US10722253B2. For Penumbra, the affirmance solidifies its freedom to operate across the claimed aspiration thrombectomy methods.
A 706-day duration from filing to resolution is consistent with Federal Circuit appeal timelines in PTAB-originated patent validity disputes. The Rule 36 disposition means no written precedent was created, limiting the ruling’s value as case law while still binding the parties fully. What drove the underlying unpatentability finding — whether anticipation, obviousness, or claim construction — remains opaque from the public record alone, as Rule 36 affirmances intentionally leave that reasoning undisclosed.
Filing to Unpatentable in 706 days
706 days from filing to Federal Circuit affirmance — consistent with typical PTAB-to-Federal Circuit appeal timelines
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
A Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error, no written opinion
Under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the court may affirm a lower tribunal’s judgment by entering a one-line order without a written opinion when the panel finds no reversible error. This is not a default or procedural shortcut — it is a deliberate ruling on the merits. The unpatentability determination from the proceeding below is fully sustained. No new legal precedent is created, but the outcome is final and binding on the parties.
Fed. Cir. R. 36 affirmanceUS10722253B2 is unpatentable — RapidPulse’s rights extinguished
The affirmance means RapidPulse cannot enforce US10722253B2 against any party. The patent covering its aspiration thrombectomy system and catheter-based clot removal methods has been found unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit has declined to disturb that finding. RapidPulse’s appellate options at this level are exhausted. Any further challenge would require a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — a very high bar with low statistical likelihood of success.
Patent rights extinguishedPenumbra secures cleared freedom to operate in aspiration thrombectomy
Penumbra, Inc. defended the unpatentability finding successfully through the Federal Circuit. With US10722253B2 now confirmed unpatentable, Penumbra and other market participants gain clarity that the claimed aspiration thrombectomy methods are not protectable under this patent. This strengthens Penumbra’s commercial position in the thrombectomy device market and reduces litigation exposure for products designed around or competing with RapidPulse’s claimed technology.
FTO confirmed for PenumbraAspiration thrombectomy IP landscape shifts after unpatentability ruling
The invalidation of US10722253B2 removes a patent barrier in the aspiration thrombectomy sector — a clinically significant and commercially competitive space. Competitors and R&D teams developing catheter-based thrombus removal systems should note that this specific claim scope is no longer encumbered. However, the Rule 36 format means claim-by-claim reasoning is unavailable, so adjacent patents in RapidPulse’s or Penumbra’s portfolios warrant independent FTO analysis before drawing broader conclusions.
IP barrier removedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RAPIDPULSE, INC. | Company | Vascular intervention technology company — holder of US10722253B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PENUMBRA, INC. | Company | Penumbra, Inc. — medical device company specialising in neurovascular and thrombectomy systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Sanders | 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 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 verdict — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ — is the Federal Circuit’s most concise form of merits disposition. It confirms the panel reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the unpatentability determination below. Rule 36 affirmances are issued when the result is correct and the reasoning from the lower tribunal is adequate on its face. No new claim construction, patentability analysis, or legal reasoning is published, making this outcome final for the parties but non-precedential for third parties assessing similar patents in the aspiration thrombectomy field.
US10722253B2 — Aspiration Thrombectomy System and Catheter-Based Clot Removal
US10722253B2 (application no. US16/681564) covers an aspiration thrombectomy system and associated methods for removing blood clots through catheter-based suction. The patent sits within the vascular intervention technology domain — a space combining fluid dynamics, catheter engineering, and clinical haemodynamics. The application number prefix suggests a relatively recent filing cycle, consistent with a second-generation or iterative claim strategy in the thrombectomy device market. The patent has now been found unpatentable following Federal Circuit affirmance.
Aspiration thrombectomy is a high-growth clinical category, particularly for ischaemic stroke and pulmonary embolism intervention. Patents covering system-level designs and procedural methods in this space carry significant commercial leverage. US10722253B2’s invalidation removes one such barrier but underscores the active patent contest between device makers. Companies including Penumbra, Stryker, Medtronic, and Invacare have overlapping interests in catheter-based clot removal IP — making this ruling a signal for the broader competitive and litigation landscape.
Should you run an FTO against US10722253B2?
Companies developing aspiration thrombectomy systems, aspiration catheters, or catheter-based clot removal devices should note that US10722253B2 has been confirmed unpatentable — meaning this specific patent no longer poses an enforcement risk. However, product teams should not treat this as blanket clearance. RapidPulse may hold related continuation or divisional applications with overlapping claim scope, and Penumbra’s own portfolio in this space merits review before committing to a product design or market entry strategy.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the full claim landscape around aspiration thrombectomy technology — identifying live patents, expired rights, and invalidated claims in one workflow. You can search by technology description, patent family, or competitor name to build a defensible clearance opinion. Given the Rule 36 outcome here leaves claim-level reasoning unpublished, a structured Eureka FTO search is the most efficient path to understanding residual risk across the catheter thrombectomy IP landscape.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10722253B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in vascular intervention patent validity
Federal Circuit cases affirming PTAB unpatentability findings in catheter-based vascular intervention technology — relevant precedent for aspiration thrombectomy IP strategy.
What this case signals for the vascular intervention IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability carries real strategic weight — even without a written opinion, the commercial consequences are immediate.
Rule 36 affirmances are final — no written reasoning doesn’t mean low stakes
IP teams sometimes underestimate Rule 36 outcomes because they lack written opinions. In this case, the Federal Circuit’s one-line affirmance fully extinguishes US10722253B2. For competitors in aspiration thrombectomy, the patent is gone. For RapidPulse, enforcement is no longer an option without a Supreme Court cert petition — a remote prospect.
Vascular device companies should audit adjacent RapidPulse and Penumbra patents now
The invalidation of one aspiration thrombectomy patent does not clear the entire landscape. Both RapidPulse and Penumbra hold broader portfolios in catheter-based intervention technology. R&D and product teams commercialising thrombus removal systems should run targeted FTO searches across related application families before treating this affirmance as a blanket clearance.
RAPIDPULSE v PENUMBRA — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US10722253B2 in a Rule 36 summary affirmance issued October 14, 2025. The court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s finding that the patent, covering an aspiration thrombectomy system and catheter-based clot removal methods, was unpatentable. No written opinion was issued.
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is a one-line judgment affirming the decision below without a written opinion. It signals the panel found no reversible error. For US10722253B2, it means the unpatentability finding is final and binding. The patent is extinguished and cannot be enforced. No new legal precedent is created, but the commercial consequence — cancellation of the patent — is fully effective.
No. Following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability on October 14, 2025, US10722253B2 is no longer enforceable. The patent covering RapidPulse’s aspiration thrombectomy system and catheter methods has been found unpatentable, and RapidPulse’s appellate options at the Federal Circuit are exhausted. A Supreme Court certiorari petition would be the only remaining avenue, which is a statistically rare outcome.
The public record characterises the proceeding as an invalidity or cancellation action on patentability grounds. The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance does not disclose the specific invalidity basis — whether anticipation, obviousness, or another ground. The reasoning from the underlying tribunal would need to be reviewed directly to determine the claim-level analysis that supported the unpatentability conclusion.
US10722253B2 no longer poses an enforcement risk following its confirmed unpatentability. However, companies developing aspiration thrombectomy systems should conduct independent FTO analysis covering related RapidPulse patent families and Penumbra’s own portfolio. The Rule 36 format means no claim-by-claim reasoning was published, so adjacent claims in continuation or divisional applications may carry residual risk that this ruling does not address.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.