IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Bard’s vascular access port patents properly invalidated despite prior jury verdict, (Dec 15, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

District court correctly found that Bard’s asserted claims were anticipated by prior art and unsupported by legally sufficient evidence to the contrary.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Delaware district court’s post-trial judgment that invalidated three patents held by C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) on the grounds of anticipation. The court affirmed that the patents at issue covering Bard’s power injectable vascular access ports were anticipated by three prior art devices. It held that the evidence presented at trial left no legally sufficient basis for a jury to find otherwise. As a result, it declined to revisit jury findings on willful infringement, the grant of a new trial, or reassignment of the case to another judge (C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., No. 2023-2056 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, C.R. Bard, Inc., and its subsidiary, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., are established manufacturers of vascular access ports—implantable medical devices used to administer intravenous therapies such as chemotherapy. The defendant/appellee, AngioDynamics, Inc., also develops and markets vascular access technologies and devices, competing directly in the same therapeutic space.

In the lawsuit, Bard asserted its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,475,417 (the ’417 patent), 8,545,460 (the ’460 patent), and 8,805,478 (the ’478 patent). These patents concern innovations that enable healthcare providers to identify, using radiographic features, whether an implanted vascular access port is suitable for high-pressure power injections. The ’417 patent claims a port assembly with features such as a radiographically visible marker, identifying suitability for a flow rate of at least 1 mL/sec and pressure tolerance of 35 psi. The ’478 patent claims a method for identifying these radiographic features using X-ray imaging.

Bard initiated the lawsuit in the District of Delaware, asserting that AngioDynamics willfully infringed the asserted patents. In an earlier appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgment of invalidity under §101, ruling that the claims were not directed solely to unpatentable printed matter. It remanded the case to allow trial on issues including anticipation.

On remand, a jury found for Bard on all counts, including willful infringement and validity. However, the district court overturned the verdict, granting JMOL for AngioDynamics and finding the asserted claims anticipated by three prior art devices: Bard’s own Adult Titanium Port (“ATP”), AngioDynamics’ “Vortex,” and the third-party “Port-A-Cath.” Bard appealed.

Printed matter doctrine and patentable weight. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that certain limitations in the claims—specifically “radiographic letters” or markers conveying that the port is suitable for power injection—constituted unpatentable printed matter. Applying the doctrine as clarified in Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP, 890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court held that these features conveyed information rather than contributing any new structural or functional feature, and therefore could not distinguish the claims over prior art.

Radiographic identifiability of prior art devices. The court emphasized that the proper focus was not the communicative content of the markers but whether any radiographically visible features were present. It held that the ATP’s port shape, suture holes, and other discernible attributes were perceivable via x-ray and thus met the structural requirements of the claimed “identifiable features.” Bard’s own stipulation at trial—that titanium ports were visible on x-ray prior to the priority date—undermined its position. Moreover, Bard’s expert conceded that ATP had x-ray-visible features, even if he personally could not determine their communicative meaning. The court rejected Bard’s argument that the 2020 remand precluded JMOL, stating that the full trial record made it legally untenable for the jury to find non-anticipation.

Power injection capability. Bard also argued that the prior art ports were not “structured for power injection.” However, the court cited extensive trial evidence showing that some ATP ports withstood pressure and flow rate testing consistent with power injection. This included admissions by Bard’s own inventors that ATP ports could endure such conditions and expert testimony that they were structurally suitable.

Notably, the court reaffirmed that a prior art device may anticipate even if it meets the claimed limitations only sometimes, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It also dismissed Bard’s arguments relating to FDA approvals as irrelevant, noting that the claims required structural capability—not regulatory endorsement.

Anticipation. Ultimately, the court concluded that none of the asserted claims could be distinguished from the prior art based on their structure, after excluding the printed matter elements. Each prior art device included radiographically identifiable features and was structurally capable of power injection. The district court’s JMOL was therefore found proper under Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 305 U.S. 197 (1938), which requires only that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.

The Case is No. 23-2056.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Deanne Maynard (Morrison & Foerster LLP) for C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. Danielle Vincenti Tully (Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP) for Angiodynamics, Inc.

Companies: C.R. Bard, Inc.; Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.; Angiodynamics, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews DelawareNews