Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Bardy Diagnostics v. Vital Connect — ECG Patch Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:22-cv-00351
FiledMar 2022
ClosedNov 2024
Patent Litigation

Bardy Diagnostics v. Vital Connect: ECG Patch Patents Dismissed With Prejudice After 959 Days

Bardy Diagnostics filed suit in the Delaware District Court alleging that Vital Connect’s VitalPatch biosensor line infringed two wearable ECG monitoring patents. After nearly three years of litigation, both parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.

Resolution time
959days
959 days — well above the median District of Delaware patent case duration of ~700 days
Patents asserted
2
US11051743B2 and US11445967B2 — wearable ECG biosensor patch monitoring technology
Outcome
Voluntary dismissal
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); claims may not be re-filed
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs — no fee-shifting award entered
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A near-three-year ECG patch dispute ends at the Delaware courthouse door

On 18 March 2022, Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. — developer of the CAM™ patch cardiac ambulatory monitor — filed a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware against Vital Connect, Inc., asserting two patents: US11051743B2 and US11445967B2, both directed at wearable electrocardiography monitoring technology. The accused products included the VitalPatch 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, VitalPatch RTM, and the broader VitalConnect Sensor biosensor platform.

The case closed on 1 November 2024 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both Bardy Diagnostics and Vital Connect agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims, with each side absorbing its own legal costs. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Bardy cannot re-assert these patents against Vital Connect on the same accused products in any future action.

At 959 days, the timeline suggests the parties engaged in substantial pre-trial proceedings — likely including claim construction and potentially inter partes review activity — before reaching resolution. The absence of any fee-shifting award is consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a one-sided capitulation, though the precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed on the public docket. What drove the parties to dismiss rather than proceed to trial is unknown from the public record.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:22-cv-00351
CourtDelaware
JudgeChristopher J. Burke
FiledMarch 18, 2022
ClosedNovember 1, 2024
Duration959 days
OutcomeVoluntary dismissal
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Delaware District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 959 days

959 days — well above the median District of Delaware patent case duration of ~700 days

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAR 18 2022, JUL–AUG — 959 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. v Vital Connect, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Delaware District Court. MAR 18 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 1 2024 Voluntary dismissal 959 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained

A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the consent of all parties and operates as a final judgment on the merits when entered with prejudice. Unlike a court-ordered dismissal, this route gives both sides full control over timing and terms. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it bars Bardy Diagnostics from re-filing the same patent claims against Vital Connect on the same accused products in any U.S. federal court.

Bilateral consent, final on merits
Plaintiff outcome

Bardy forecloses re-assertion — what that signals

By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Bardy Diagnostics permanently relinquishes its infringement claims under US11051743B2 and US11445967B2 against Vital Connect’s VitalPatch line. This outcome is more restrictive than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to re-litigate. Whether Bardy extracted a licence, royalty, or design-around commitment from Vital Connect in exchange is not disclosed on the public record, but the mutual cost-bearing clause suggests a commercially balanced resolution.

Claims barred from re-filing
Defendant outcome

Vital Connect closes the litigation risk on VitalPatch

For Vital Connect, the with-prejudice dismissal effectively extinguishes Bardy’s threat to its VitalPatch 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, RTM, and broader VitalConnect Sensor products under these two patents. The company avoids a jury verdict, an injunction, or a damages award. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties — Vital Connect’s protection is specific to this stipulation, not a broader invalidation of Bardy’s IP.

Litigation risk cleared for VitalPatch
Commercial implications

Bardy’s ECG patch patents remain active competitive weapons

US11051743B2 and US11445967B2 survive this litigation fully intact and enforceable. The dismissal is party-specific — it does not invalidate any claims, create prosecution history estoppel against third parties, or signal weakness in the patent portfolio. Other wearable ECG monitor manufacturers operating in adjacent product spaces should note that Bardy’s enforcement posture remains active. The 959-day duration suggests these patents withstood scrutiny long enough to warrant a negotiated exit.

Patents remain enforceable vs. third parties
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:22-cv-00351 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffBardy Diagnostics, Inc.CompanyCardiac monitoring technology company — holder of US11051743B2 and US11445967B2Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantVital Connect, Inc.CompanyWearable biosensor manufacturer — maker of the VitalPatch ECG monitoring platformSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdgar MatiasAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan A. ChoaAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLouis A. KlappAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael H. FleckAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPhilip A. RovnerAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselShaun ZhangAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselStephen M. HankinsAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTyler E. CraggAttorneyCounsel for Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmPotter Anderson & Corroon, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGerald E. PorterAttorneyCounsel for Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeremy A. TiganAttorneyCounsel for Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael C. ChowAttorneyCounsel for Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRichard F. MartinelliAttorneyCounsel for Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTammy SuAttorneyCounsel for Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMorris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Vital Connect, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Christopher J. BurkeJudgeDelaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. and Defendant Vital Connect, Inc. hereby stipulate to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims in this action. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:22-cv-00351, Delaware District Court

The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the bilateral dismissal mechanism requiring written consent from all parties. The phrase ‘with prejudice’ is the operative legal term: it converts the voluntary exit into a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Bardy from reasserting these claims against Vital Connect on these products. The mutual cost-bearing clause — ‘each party shall bear its own costs and fees’ — is standard in negotiated resolutions and forecloses any subsequent fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The stipulation’s symmetry suggests a commercially negotiated conclusion rather than a unilateral capitulation by either party.

PACER case 1:22-cv-00351 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11051743B2 & US11445967B2 — Wearable ECG Biosensor Patch Technology

Publication No.US11051743B2
Application No.US17/119945
Patent details
ProductWearable cardiac ambulatory ECG monitoring patch with elongated backing strip electrode system
Cited in actionMarch 18, 2022

Publication No.US11445967B2
Application No.US17/367476
Patent details
ProductWearable ECG biosensor patch formulations and cardiac monitoring methods
Cited in actionMarch 18, 2022

US11051743B2 (application US17/119945) and US11445967B2 (application US17/367476) are utility patents assigned to Bardy Diagnostics covering wearable electrocardiography monitoring technology. The patents protect structural and functional aspects of patch-form cardiac monitors — including features consistent with the CAM™ patch architecture, such as an elongated backing strip configured for sustained body-worn ECG acquisition. Both patents sit within the rapidly expanding wearable cardiac diagnostics space, where miniaturisation and continuous ambulatory monitoring have become central clinical and commercial differentiators.

These patents represent Bardy’s offensive IP position against direct competitors in the wearable biosensor patch market. The asserted product set — VitalPatch 1.0 through RTM — indicates that Bardy viewed Vital Connect’s entire commercial ECG wearable line as potentially infringing. For sector participants, this patent family signals that Bardy actively monitors the competitive landscape and is willing to litigate in a major patent venue. The 959-day case duration, ending without invalidation, suggests the patents demonstrated sufficient claim resilience to sustain extended litigation.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against US11051743B2 and US11445967B2?

Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising wearable ECG monitoring patches — particularly those featuring elongated flexible backing strips, body-worn electrode configurations, or continuous ambulatory cardiac monitoring methods — should treat these two Bardy patents as priority FTO targets. The patents survived nearly three years of adversarial litigation without invalidation, and the dismissal is party-specific: it provides no protection to any third-party biosensor or cardiac patch manufacturer.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map claim language from US11051743B2 and US11445967B2 against pending product designs before commercialisation. Eureka surfaces forward citations, family members, and prosecution history to identify design-around opportunities and assess claim scope. For wearable medtech teams approaching product launch, an Eureka-driven FTO analysis can flag infringement risk early — when design changes are still commercially viable.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11051743B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Wearable ECG & Biosensor Patent Cases in Delaware District Court

Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving wearable cardiac monitoring and biosensor technology litigated in the District of Delaware.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. patent enforcement history, Delaware case history, Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
ECG patch infringement suitsWearable medtech D. Del. casesBardy Diagnostics IP portfolioCardiac monitor patent disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the wearable cardiac monitoring IP landscape

A long-running ECG patch dispute resolved bilaterally — with lasting implications for biosensor patent enforcement strategy.

With-prejudice exits protect defendants but leave patents intact

Vital Connect secured permanent protection against these specific claims, but Bardy’s patents remain in force. Any competitor in the wearable ECG or biosensor patch market should treat US11051743B2 and US11445967B2 as live enforcement risks and audit product overlap before commercialising.

Mutual cost-bearing suggests neither side had a clear upper hand

The absence of fee-shifting in a 959-day case is a notable signal. Courts award fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in ‘exceptional’ cases. The parties’ decision to each bear their own costs is consistent with a negotiated resolution where neither side had achieved decisive litigation leverage.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper strategic analysis of wearable ECG patent enforcement trends and District of Delaware biosensor litigation patterns.
CAM patch claim mappingIPR/PGR filing windowsComparable ECG settlements
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Bardy v Vital — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track wearable cardiac monitoring patent risk before it reaches your product

Bardy’s ECG patch patents remain enforceable against the broader market. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent and patent monitoring tools let medtech R&D teams identify claim overlap and citation signals early — when design changes are still cost-effective.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.