Book a demo

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

Try now
Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard — Foley Catheter Tray Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:17-cv-07216
FiledOct 2017
ClosedMar 2025
Patent Litigation

Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard: Foley Catheter Tray Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice After 7+ Years

Medline Industries filed suit against C.R. Bard in October 2017 asserting four patents covering urinary catheter tray systems, including the ERASE CAUTI and SureStep Foley Tray product lines. After 2,724 days of litigation before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois, the parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice — with an automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice if no party moved to reinstate by April 20, 2025.

Resolution time
2724days
7+ years in litigation — well above the median for N.D. Ill. patent cases, suggesting protracted discovery or IPR proceedings
Patents asserted
4
US9808400B2 and 3 further patents asserted — Foley catheter insertion tray systems and CAUTI-prevention technology
Outcome
Dismissed without Prejudice
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice; auto-converts to with prejudice if no reinstatement by April 20, 2025
Cost ruling
Each Side Bears Own Costs
No prevailing party cost award — each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and litigation costs
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Seven-Year Catheter Tray Patent Battle Ends in Conditional Dismissal

Medline Industries, Inc. initiated this infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on October 5, 2017, asserting four patents — US9808400B2, US9745088B2, US9795761B2, and US9808596B2 — covering urinary catheter insertion tray systems designed to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). The accused products include C.R. Bard’s competing Foley tray systems, which Medline alleged infringed its proprietary tray designs and CAUTI-prevention configurations used in its ERASE CAUTI and SureStep product lines.

The case closed on March 21, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal without prejudice, jointly filed by both parties. The dismissal carried an unusual conditional clause: it would automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice if neither party moved to reinstate the action by April 20, 2025 — a roughly 30-day window. The parties agreed to bear their own costs, suggesting no monetary resolution was publicly disclosed and that any commercial terms, if applicable, remain confidential.

A litigation duration of 2,724 days — nearly 7.5 years — is notably long even for complex multi-patent disputes, and likely reflects parallel inter partes review proceedings, claim construction battles, and potentially protracted damages discovery. The without-prejudice posture with a short reinstatement window is consistent with a negotiated resolution that the parties chose not to memorialize publicly, or a strategic pause pending final settlement documentation. What the public record cannot confirm is whether a license, cross-license, or commercial agreement underlies the dismissal.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:17-cv-07216
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeMary M. Rowland
FiledOctober 5, 2017
ClosedMarch 21, 2025
Duration2724 days
OutcomeDismissed without Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed without Prejudice
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 / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 2724 days

7+ years in litigation — well above the median for N.D. Ill. patent cases, suggesting protracted discovery or IPR proceedings

Case timeline: Complaint filed OCT 5 2017, JUN–JUL — 2724 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Medline Industries, Inc. v C.R. Bard, Inc from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. OCT 5 2017 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAR 21 2025 Dismissed without Prejudice 2724 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed without prejudice: what the conditional stipulation means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal without prejudice

A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires both parties’ signatures, making it a mutual agreement rather than a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. The without-prejudice designation means the claims are not adjudicated on the merits and could theoretically be refiled. Critically, the automatic conversion clause to with-prejudice status sets a hard 30-day deadline — after April 20, 2025, the absence of reinstatement motion likely extinguishes Medline’s right to relitigate these specific claims.

Conditional dismissal
Plaintiff outcome

Medline retains temporary optionality — but the window is narrow

The without-prejudice status technically preserves Medline’s ability to refile within the reinstatement window. However, the automatic conversion mechanism strongly suggests the parties anticipated finality. If Medline secured a license or commercial arrangement from Bard, the without-prejudice framing may simply reflect standard settlement drafting practice. Absent reinstatement, Medline’s four asserted patents remain valid but unenforced against Bard in this action.

Claims not adjudicated
Defendant outcome

Bard avoids merits ruling — each party bears own costs

C.R. Bard avoids any finding of infringement or invalidity, preserving its litigation record clean of adverse rulings on these four catheter tray patents. The own-costs arrangement removes any fee-shifting risk under 35 U.S.C. § 285. If the conversion to with-prejudice occurred automatically after April 20, 2025, Bard would gain a stronger shield against any future assertion of these specific patents by Medline in the same forum.

No infringement finding
Commercial implications

CAUTI-prevention tray IP landscape remains unsettled post-dismissal

The absence of any claim construction or validity ruling leaves the scope of Medline’s four catheter tray patents unlitigated. Competitors in the CAUTI-prevention device market — including Foley tray manufacturers and hospital supply distributors — cannot rely on this case for guidance on patent scope. The seven-year timeline and heavy representation from eight plaintiff law firms suggests the commercial stakes were substantial, consistent with a high-volume, hospital procurement-driven product category.

Patent scope unresolved
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:17-cv-07216 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMedline Industries, Inc.CompanyMedical supply and device manufacturer — holder of US9808400B2 and three further Foley catheter tray patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantC.R. Bard, IncCompanyC.R. Bard, Inc. — global medical device company, manufacturer of competing Foley catheter tray systemsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAllen E. HooverAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrew Charles WoodAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAngela Campbell TarasiAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrett M. SandfordAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrian EutermoserAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher C. CampbellAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCourtney Elizabeth CroninAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselErik MilchAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselErin M EstevezAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGabrielle LahatteAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGregory K. SobolskiAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGwen Hochman StewartAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames P. BroganAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph Frank MarinelliAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarc N. ZubickAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark ZambardaAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMaximilian A. GrantAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNaina SoniAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNathaniel Carrick LoveAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNicole L. LittleAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPeter Joseph SauerAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselStanley Allen SchlitterAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselStephanie Pauline Smith KohAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselStephen Crawford CrenshawAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTerra ReynoldsAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselThomas David ReinAttorneyCounsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCooley LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFitch Even Tabin & FlanneryLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmIrwin IP LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKelley Drye & Warren LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKing & Spalding LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmLatham & Watkins LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSidley Austin LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSteptoe, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAthena Diane DaltonAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBianca A FoxAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDawn Marie DavidAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDylan J RaifeAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJared Weston NewtonAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn Raleigh O’DonnellAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJonathan McNeal SmithAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselLaura Lucille FairnenyAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMarc Lawrence KaplanAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew A TraupmanAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMolly K MooreAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNicole M. SmithAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRaymond N. NimrodAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselScott WatsonAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven ChernyAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTodd H. FlamingAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselVincent J. BeluskoAttorneyCounsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmJones DayLaw FirmRepresenting C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMorrison & Foerster LLPLaw FirmRepresenting C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLPLaw FirmRepresenting C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLPLaw FirmRepresenting C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmTodd Flaming LLCLaw FirmRepresenting C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Mary M. RowlandJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action and all claims asserted therein are dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal shall automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice if, by April 20, 2025, no party moves to reinstate the case. Each party shall bear its own costs.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:17-cv-07216, Illinois Northern District Court

The stipulated dismissal language is precise in its conditionality: the without-prejudice status is not permanent but instead functions as a 30-day grace period before automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice. This structure is consistent with parties who have reached substantive agreement but require time to finalise documentation. Critically, neither party obtained any judicial ruling on the merits — no infringement finding, no invalidity determination, and no claim construction order is recorded. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause eliminates any § 285 exceptional-case fee exposure and is a standard feature of negotiated resolutions in complex medical device patent disputes.

PACER case 1:17-cv-07216 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9808400B2 — Foley catheter insertion tray system for CAUTI prevention

Publication No.US9808400B2
Application No.US14/265909
Patent details
ProductFoley catheter insertion tray with CAUTI-reduction design features
Cited in actionOctober 5, 2017

Publication No.US9745088B2
Application No.US14/793455
Patent details
ProductUrinary catheter tray system with sterile component configuration
Cited in actionOctober 5, 2017

Publication No.US9795761B2
Application No.US13/153265
Patent details
ProductIndwelling urinary catheter tray assembly and insertion method
Cited in actionOctober 5, 2017

Publication No.US9808596B2
Application No.US15/067903
Patent details
ProductFoley catheter tray system with integrated procedural components
Cited in actionOctober 5, 2017

The four asserted patents — US9808400B2, US9745088B2, US9795761B2, and US9808596B2 — cover Foley catheter insertion tray systems and related assemblies aimed at reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), a major source of hospital-acquired infection liability. The application numbers span filings from 2011 through 2016, reflecting a sustained prosecution strategy by Medline to build a layered portfolio around tray design, component arrangement, and sterile procedural configurations used in clinical catheterisation workflows.

CAUTI prevention is a high-stakes commercial domain: hospitals face significant regulatory and financial penalties for preventable HAIs, driving procurement decisions toward products with clinical differentiation. Medline’s multi-patent portfolio in this space — covering both device configuration and method claims across four distinct application families — creates meaningful licensing leverage against competitors supplying Foley tray kits to the same hospital and GPO customers. C.R. Bard’s SureStep-competing product line made it a natural target, and the unresolved patent scope continues to represent a risk for any third-party manufacturer offering comparable tray assemblies.

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

Should you run an FTO against US9808400B2 and the Medline Foley tray portfolio?

Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing Foley catheter insertion tray systems — including private-label hospital supply kits, CAUTI-reduction procedural trays, or integrated urological care bundles — should treat Medline’s four-patent portfolio as a live FTO concern. The dismissal without prejudice (and likely subsequent with-prejudice conversion) does not signal that Medline has abandoned enforcement; it signals that Bard resolved its exposure, likely commercially. New market entrants and existing tray suppliers have no judicial claim construction to rely on.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9808400B2, US9745088B2, US9795761B2, and US9808596B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities across the four application families, and surface any related continuation or divisional patents that may extend Medline’s coverage. Eureka also monitors PTAB proceedings linked to these application numbers, giving R&D and procurement teams real-time visibility into patent validity status before committing to product development or supplier agreements.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9808400B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent disputes: Foley catheter and CAUTI-prevention device cases in N.D. Ill.

These cases involve analogous Foley catheter tray or hospital-acquired infection prevention device patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable federal venues.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Medline Industries, Inc. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Medline Industries, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Competing Foley tray casesN.D. Ill. medical device outcomesCAUTI device patent verdictsBard patent litigation history
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the catheter tray and CAUTI-prevention IP landscape

A 7.5-year dispute ending in conditional dismissal without a merits ruling carries distinct signals for medical device IP strategy in the CAUTI-prevention space.

No validity or infringement ruling leaves Medline’s four patents fully intact

Because the case resolved without any court ruling on claim construction, validity, or infringement, US9808400B2, US9745088B2, US9795761B2, and US9808596B2 remain presumptively valid and unadjudicated. Any competitor in the Foley catheter tray space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and conduct independent FTO analysis before market entry.

Own-costs dismissal after 7+ years suggests a negotiated commercial resolution

Litigation of this duration and complexity — involving eight plaintiff law firms and five defense firms — rarely ends in a bare procedural dismissal without some commercial resolution. The own-costs clause and automatic conversion mechanism are consistent with a confidential licensing or cross-licensing arrangement. IP strategists should monitor both companies’ product launches and licensing disclosures for confirmatory signals.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of CAUTI-prevention patent enforcement trends and N.D. Ill. district court strategic patterns.
IPR exposure analysisLicensing strategy signalsCompetitive FTO risk map
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Medline v C.R. — key questions answered

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

Map your FTO exposure across Medline’s catheter tray patent portfolio

The four Medline Foley tray patents remain unlitigated on the merits — meaning any competitor in CAUTI-prevention device supply faces live enforcement risk. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO analysis and monitor continuation filings before your next product launch.

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.