C.R. Bard vs. AngioDynamics: Venous Access Port Patent Dispute Settles in Landmark Medical Device Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:21-cv-00349 (Dist. Del.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Duration | Mar 2021 – Apr 2024 3 years 1 month |
| Outcome | Settlement – Confidential Terms |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products |
|
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Established medical device entities, now subsidiaries of BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company), with substantial IP portfolios in vascular access technology and a history of aggressive patent enforcement.
🛡️ Defendant
Publicly traded medical device company specializing in vascular access, oncology, and surgical products, with accused BioFlo Ports and Xcela Plus product lines representing core revenue.
Patents at Issue
This dispute involved three U.S. patents covering power-injectable implantable port technology, critical for patients requiring long-term intravenous access for therapies like chemotherapy. These patents protect the technical designs that enable ports to safely withstand high-pressure injections for contrast media delivery during CT imaging.
- • US 9,603,993 — Power-injectable implantable port with specific design features.
- • US 9,603,992 — Improvements to power-injectable port functionality and structure.
- • US 8,025,639 — Core patent relating to robust port designs for high-pressure injection.
Designing a new medical device or vascular access port?
Check if your product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome: Dismissed With Prejudice via Settlement
The case concluded pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule 41 through a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed by both parties and approved by the court on April 8, 2024. The financial terms of the underlying settlement agreement were not made public, which is standard practice in confidential patent settlements.
Verdict Cause Analysis
Under the terms of the settlement, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. Both parties expressly waived any right to seek attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This mutual waiver is strategically significant, reducing future litigation risk and signaling a commercially balanced resolution rather than a definitive legal victory for either side. The three-year duration and large defense team suggest substantive validity and infringement disputes existed.
Legal Significance
This case reinforces several important dynamics in medical device patent assertion: portfolio assertion strategy remains effective, with multiple related patents increasing settlement pressure. The Delaware venue continues to attract complex, high-stakes medical device IP disputes. Finally, mutual § 285 waivers in settlement agreements are increasingly common tools for achieving clean, final resolutions without lingering litigation risk.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Medical Devices
This case highlights critical IP risks in medical device design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation in the medical device space.
- View all 40+ related patents in vascular access technology
- See which companies are most active in medical device IP
- Understand claim construction patterns for implantable ports
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own medical device or vascular access product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Power-injectable port designs
40+ Related Patents
In vascular access technology
Design-Around Options
Available for certain claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Multi-patent portfolio assertions against entire product lines remain a high-leverage litigation strategy in medical device IP.
Search related case law →Mutual § 285 fee waivers provide clean settlement finality and should be considered in negotiated dismissals.
Explore legal precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Three U.S. patents were asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,603,993; 9,603,992; and 8,025,639, all relating to power-injectable implantable venous access port technology.
The parties reached a confidential settlement agreement and filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Specific settlement terms were not publicly disclosed.
It reinforces that multi-patent portfolio assertions remain effective in medical device litigation and that comprehensive FTO analysis is essential for companies developing or modifying port technologies.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the District of Delaware — Case 1:21-cv-00349
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Search
- World Intellectual Property Organization — Patent Cooperation Treaty
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 285
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.