Short Summary
VIVITRO LABS INC. successfully achieved institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Patent No. 9237935, challenging claims related to prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Dynatek regarding certain limitations, despite preliminary rejections on other grounds.
Detailed Summary
VIVITRO LABS INC. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Patent No. 9237935 concerning prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing unpatentability for at least one challenged claim. Claim construction was performed on key terms such as 'fluid communication' and 'excess volume area.' While the Board preliminarily rejected arguments regarding anticipation over Xi and obviousness over Goldstein/Lu, it found sufficient teaching from Dynatek to meet the burden for institution on certain claims, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in VIVITRO LABS INC. vs BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Syngenta Crop Protection AGvsInflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of U.S. Patent 12,102,027 covering a prescriptive seed‑treatment method, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.vsOncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.'s IPR challenge against Oncoustics Inc. was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that prior art processed a 'single static set' of raw RF ultrasound data.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.