C.R. Bard v. AngioDynamics: Federal Circuit Affirms Power Injectable Port Patents
C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular pursued AngioDynamics over three patents covering power injectable subcutaneous access ports and contrast media delivery methods. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling after 907 days, reinforcing Bard’s IP position in a contested vascular access technology segment.
Federal Circuit closes Bard’s vascular access port dispute with AngioDynamics
C.R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiary Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. brought an infringement action against AngioDynamics, Inc. asserting three US patents — US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2 — covering assemblies for identifying power injectable access ports, infusion apparatuses, and methods of performing power injection procedures using subcutaneously implanted ports for contrast media delivery. The case ultimately reached the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under Case No. 23-2056, filed June 22, 2023.
The Federal Circuit issued an affirmance on December 15, 2025, ordering that the lower court judgment be affirmed in full. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed,’ yet the verdict expressly states ‘AFFIRMED,’ which is consistent with a merits affirmance on the substantive infringement claims. For AngioDynamics, the affirmance closes the appellate path at this level; for Bard, all three patents retain the enforceability conferred by the district court’s prior ruling.
The 907-day duration from filing to closure suggests a substantive appellate process rather than a rapid procedural resolution, consistent with the complexity of multi-patent infringement appeals at the Federal Circuit. The public record does not disclose specific claim-by-claim findings or damages quantum from this appellate proceeding, leaving some detail of the underlying district court outcome outside the public appellate record. The outcome strengthens Bard’s licensing and enforcement posture across the power injectable port product category.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 907 days
907 days — above the Federal Circuit median for patent infringement appeals
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower court found no reversible error
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it concludes that the district court committed no reversible legal or factual error warranting intervention. The prior judgment — covering infringement findings and any associated relief — stands intact. The appellate court does not rehear the case on the merits; it reviews for errors of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, a high threshold for an appellant to overcome.
No reversible error foundBard’s three port patents survive appellate challenge
The affirmance preserves the enforceability of US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2 as determined by the district court. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular can point to a Federal Circuit-affirmed judgment to support licensing negotiations, future enforcement actions against other market participants, and as prior art estoppel against validity re-arguments by AngioDynamics in future proceedings.
Patent enforceability preservedAngioDynamics exhausts Federal Circuit appellate path
For AngioDynamics, the affirmance closes ordinary appellate relief at the Federal Circuit level. The company’s remaining options are narrow: a petition for rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, both of which face low statistical probability of grant. The affirmed judgment raises the bar for any future challenge to these three patents by AngioDynamics.
Appellate options substantially exhaustedAffirmed judgment strengthens Bard’s position in vascular access IP
A Federal Circuit affirmance on power injectable access port patents signals durable IP protection for a clinically significant product category used in contrast media delivery and chemotherapy. Competitors and new entrants in the implantable vascular access port segment should treat these three patents as validated, court-tested barriers. The ruling may also influence royalty expectations in any ongoing or future licensing discussions in this technology space.
Elevated barrier for port competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | C. R. Bard, Inc. | Company | Vascular access device manufacturer — holder of US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AngioDynamics, Inc. | Company | Medical device company commercialising vascular access and infusion therapy productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Robert Matsui | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Deanne Maynard Counsel | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel F. Wacks | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew A. Traupman | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth W. Lloyd | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Cherny | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP | Law Firm | Representing C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Danielle Vincenti Tully | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Cole | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Moehringer | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John T. Augelli | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Brian Powell | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Glenn | Attorney | Counsel for AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP | Law Firm | Representing AngioDynamics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED’ — indicates the panel found no reversible error in the district court’s disposition of the infringement claims across all three patents. At the Federal Circuit, legal questions such as claim construction are reviewed de novo while factual findings, including infringement, are reviewed for clear error. A clean affirmance without remand suggests the lower court record was sufficiently robust on both legal and factual grounds to withstand appellate scrutiny. For AngioDynamics, the absence of a remand instruction leaves no further district court proceedings to relitigate the underlying merits.
US8545460B2, US8805478B2 & US8475417B2 — Power Injectable Access Port Patents
The three asserted patents — US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2 — collectively cover the hardware assemblies, infusion apparatus, and clinical methods associated with power injectable subcutaneous access ports. These ports are implanted beneath the skin and accessed percutaneously for high-pressure delivery of contrast media during imaging procedures such as CT scans, as well as for chemotherapy and other infusion therapies. The patents address both the physical identification features of the port and the procedural methods for safe power injection.
Power injectable access ports represent a clinically differentiated product class from conventional low-pressure ports, and the intellectual property protecting identification features and injection methods has become strategically significant as hospitals standardise on power-injectable protocols. For competitors, these three patents — now affirmed at the Federal Circuit — represent validated barriers around a high-volume, recurring-use medical device category. Any manufacturer seeking to market a competing implantable port with power injection capability should treat this patent family as a primary freedom-to-operate concern.
Should you run an FTO against US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2?
Any medical device company developing, sourcing, or commercialising implantable vascular access ports with power injection capability — particularly those used in contrast media delivery for CT imaging — should conduct a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against these three patents. The Federal Circuit affirmance means validity arguments already tested in litigation are unlikely to succeed again without new prior art. Product and regulatory teams should assess identification features, pressure ratings, and injection method claims against each patent independently.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim elements across US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2 against your product specifications, flag blocking claims, and surface relevant prior art for potential design-around or IPR strategy. Given the multi-patent layering in this case, automated claim charting across all three patents simultaneously is substantially more efficient than manual review and reduces the risk of overlooking method claims that survived appeal.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8545460B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Patent Appeals in Medical Device Infringement
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving implantable medical device patents and vascular access infringement actions with comparable multi-patent assertion strategies.
What this case signals for the vascular access device IP landscape
Three court-tested patents covering power injectable port identification and infusion methods now carry Federal Circuit-backed weight. Competitors must plan accordingly.
Federal Circuit validation raises enforcement credibility for Bard’s port portfolio
An affirmed Federal Circuit judgment is among the strongest endorsements a patent holder can obtain short of Supreme Court review. Other vascular access port manufacturers should assess their product designs against US8545460B2, US8805478B2, and US8475417B2 before the next product cycle, as licensing demands backed by this ruling carry significant leverage.
Multi-patent infringement strategies amplify litigation risk for device defendants
Bard asserted three complementary patents covering assemblies, apparatus, and method claims — a layered approach that makes design-arounds more difficult and appeals more expensive. Device companies competing in the power injectable access port space should audit product features against each claim family individually, as invalidating one patent does not neutralise the others.
C. v AngioDynamics — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court judgment in Case No. 23-2056 on December 15, 2025. The order states ‘AFFIRMED,’ meaning the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court’s disposition of the infringement claims involving Bard’s three power injectable access port patents.
Bard asserted three patents: US8545460B2 (assemblies for identifying a power injectable access port), US8805478B2 (infusion apparatuses and related methods), and US8475417B2 (methods of performing power injection procedures including identifying features of a subcutaneously implanted access port for contrast media delivery).
Following an affirmance, AngioDynamics’ ordinary appellate options are substantially closed. It could petition for rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit or seek certiorari at the Supreme Court, both with low probability of success. Inter partes review at the USPTO may also be considered, subject to estoppel rules and timing constraints from any prior IPR activity.
Case No. 23-2056 was filed on June 22, 2023 and closed on December 15, 2025, a duration of 907 days — approximately 2.5 years. This duration is consistent with a substantive merits appeal rather than a rapid procedural resolution, suggesting full briefing and likely oral argument took place.
Power injectable access ports are subcutaneous implants that allow high-pressure delivery of contrast media for CT imaging and other infusion therapies. They differ from standard ports in their pressure tolerances and identification features. The clinical differentiation creates strong IP value, and Bard’s three affirmed patents cover key assembly, apparatus, and method aspects of this product category, making FTO analysis essential for competing manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.