C.R. Bard v. Smiths Group: Implantable Port Patent Dispute Settled After Nearly Five Years
C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular asserted two implantable vascular port patents — US7785302 and US7947022 — against Smiths Group (later identified as ICU Medical) in Delaware. The case resolved by confidential settlement after 1,814 days, with plaintiffs’ claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Five-Year Implantable Port Battle Ends in Confidential Settlement
In November 2020, C.R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiary Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. filed suit in the District of Delaware against Smiths Group, asserting infringement of US7785302B2 and US7947022B2 — patents covering implantable vascular access port technology. The accused products were the P.A.S. PORT Power P.A.C. and PORT-A-CATH implantable port product lines. Implantable ports are surgically placed devices used to deliver chemotherapy, nutrition, and other therapies directly into the bloodstream, representing a high-value segment of the vascular access market.
The case closed on 5 November 2025 pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, referencing an undisclosed settlement agreement. Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning Bard cannot re-file the same infringement claims — while the defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to reassert those claims in future proceedings. Notably, the defendant named in the dismissal stipulation is ICU Medical, Inc., consistent with ICU Medical’s acquisition of Smiths Medical from Smiths Group, which completed in January 2022.
At 1,814 days, the case duration significantly exceeds the typical median time to resolution in Delaware patent actions, suggesting either protracted discovery, claim construction disputes, or extended settlement negotiations following a change in defendant ownership. The financial terms of the settlement remain confidential, and each party agreed to bear its own costs and waived any right to seek attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the dismissal order, which is standard practice when settlement terms may require future judicial oversight.
Filing to Case Settled in 1814 days
1,814 days — nearly five years to resolution, well above typical district court median
Rule 41 dismissal: what the split prejudice structure means for both sides
Split-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41 is strategically significant
The stipulation dismisses Bard’s infringement claims with prejudice while dismissing ICU Medical’s counterclaims without prejudice. This asymmetric structure is not accidental — it reflects negotiated risk allocation. Bard surrenders its right to re-litigate these specific infringement claims, while ICU Medical retains the theoretical ability to revive its counterclaims, which may include invalidity challenges or declaratory judgment claims.
Rule 41 split-prejudice dismissalBard closes infringement claims; settlement terms remain confidential
Bard cannot re-assert the same infringement claims against ICU Medical under these patents on the same accused products. The with-prejudice dismissal functions as a full release of the asserted claims in this action. Whether the settlement includes a licence, royalty, or design-around commitment by ICU Medical is not disclosed in the public record. The court’s retained jurisdiction suggests the settlement agreement contains ongoing obligations worth enforcing.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceICU Medical preserves counterclaim optionality — a notable carve-out
By securing dismissal of its counterclaims without prejudice, ICU Medical (successor to Smiths Medical) retains the ability to challenge patent validity or seek declaratory relief in a future proceeding, should commercial circumstances change. This is consistent with a defendant that believed it had viable invalidity arguments but chose settlement over the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation following the ownership transition from Smiths Group.
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudiceVascular access port IP landscape: patents survive, market impact unclear
US7785302 and US7947022 remain in force following the settlement — neither patent was found invalid in this proceeding. Competitors in the implantable port segment, including those developing power-injectable port systems, should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The acquisition of Smiths Medical by ICU Medical mid-litigation illustrates the M&A complexity that can reshape patent dispute dynamics, potentially accelerating settlement calculus for both acquirer and target.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | C. R. Bard, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of implantable vascular port patents US7785302 and US7947022Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Smiths Group | Company | Smiths Group (Smiths Medical division, later acquired by ICU Medical in January 2022)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian P. Egan | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryon J. Benevento | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cameron Paul Clark | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kimberly Neville | 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 | Steven C. Cherny | Attorney | Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing C. R. Bard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cortlan S. Hitch | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack T. Carroll | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey N. Costakos | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Laurence Dorsney | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kimberly K. Dodd | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michelle A. Moran | Attorney | Counsel for Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris James LLP | Law Firm | Representing Smiths GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — claims dismissed ‘with prejudice’ and counterclaims dismissed ‘without prejudice’ — is precise and deliberate. With-prejudice dismissal of Bard’s infringement claims operates as an adjudication on the merits, barring re-filing. The without-prejudice treatment of ICU Medical’s counterclaims preserves those claims for future assertion if circumstances warrant. The reference to the parties’ Settlement Agreement as the operative instrument, combined with retained court jurisdiction, confirms this is not a clean severance but an enforceable ongoing arrangement. The mutual § 285 fee waiver further suggests neither party secured a definitively superior position through the litigation.
US7785302B2 & US7947022B2 — Implantable Vascular Access Port Technology
US7785302B2 and US7947022B2 cover implantable vascular access port technology — surgically implanted devices used to provide repeated access to the venous system for chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, and contrast media delivery. US7785302 derives from application US11/368954, while US7947022 derives from US12/420028. Both patents sit within a technically competitive space where power-injectable capability — the ability to withstand high-pressure contrast injections for CT imaging — represents a meaningful clinical and commercial differentiator.
Bard’s implantable port portfolio, including the P.A.S. PORT Power P.A.C. brand, has historically competed directly with Smiths Medical’s PORT-A-CATH line. Enforcement of these patents against a major competitor signals that Bard (now part of BD) treats its vascular access IP as a core defensive and offensive asset. With ICU Medical now holding the PORT-A-CATH franchise following its Smiths Medical acquisition, any future product redesign or expansion in power-injectable ports carries residual risk from these patents, which remain valid and enforceable following the settlement.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7785302B2 and US7947022B2?
Any manufacturer, OEM, or distributor developing or commercialising implantable vascular access ports — particularly power-injectable systems — should treat US7785302 and US7947022 as priority FTO targets. The five-year duration of this case, and Bard’s willingness to pursue a major multinational defendant through an M&A transition, signals active enforcement intent. Companies developing next-generation port designs, catheter attachment mechanisms, or injection septum technologies should assess claim scope carefully.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from US7785302 and US7947022 against product design specifications, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface design-around pathways. Eureka’s prior art and citation analysis can also identify whether related continuation or divisional patents extend the coverage landscape beyond these two granted patents, giving teams a complete picture of Bard’s implantable port IP position before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7785302B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Implantable Port & Vascular Access Patent Cases in Delaware
Explore related patent infringement actions involving implantable vascular access port technology and medical device IP disputes litigated in the District of Delaware.
What this case signals for the vascular access device IP landscape
Five years of litigation and a change of defendant ownership — this case reflects the high-stakes, long-horizon nature of medical device patent enforcement.
M&A mid-litigation changes settlement calculus for all parties
ICU Medical’s acquisition of Smiths Medical in January 2022 transformed the defendant’s identity, risk appetite, and legal strategy. Acquirers inheriting active patent litigation should model the full cost of continued defence — including discovery obligations, trial risk, and potential injunctions — against settlement terms early in integration planning.
Split-prejudice structures signal negotiated balance, not capitulation
The asymmetric dismissal — plaintiffs with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without — is a common settlement architecture in high-value patent cases. It allows each party to preserve optionality where strategically important. Counsel structuring settlements in medical device cases should scrutinise this structure carefully when drafting counterclaim release scope.
C. v Smiths — key questions answered
The case settled after 1,814 days. Under a joint stipulation filed 5 November 2025, Bard’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice and the defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs and waived § 285 fee claims. The financial terms of the settlement are confidential.
Bard asserted two patents: US7785302B2 (application US11/368954) and US7947022B2 (application US12/420028). Both cover implantable vascular access port technology. The accused products were the P.A.S. PORT Power P.A.C. and PORT-A-CATH implantable port product lines associated with Smiths Medical.
ICU Medical, Inc. completed its acquisition of Smiths Medical from Smiths Group in January 2022, during the pendency of this litigation. The dismissal stipulation reflects the substitution of ICU Medical as the operative defendant following the acquisition. This mid-litigation ownership change is consistent with the case’s extended duration of nearly five years.
Bard’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring re-assertion of those specific claims on the same accused products under these patents. ICU Medical’s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or declaratory judgment claims — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving ICU Medical’s ability to re-raise those arguments in future proceedings if commercial circumstances change.
Yes. Neither patent was invalidated in this proceeding. The settlement does not establish a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. Both patents remain granted and potentially enforceable against third parties. Companies in the implantable port and vascular access device space should continue to treat these patents as active enforcement risk when designing or commercialising competing products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.