• Vital Connect, Inc. v. Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00381 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 11–20 under § 325(d), finding the asserted art previously presented and no material error shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “The Board has discretion to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), “[i]n determining whether to institute [inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office and Petitioner has failed to show error in the consideration of that art or argument. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,051,743

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.