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.
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.
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
Dismissed without prejudice: what the conditional stipulation means for both parties
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 dismissalMedline 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 adjudicatedBard 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 findingCAUTI-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 unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Medline Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical supply and device manufacturer — holder of US9808400B2 and three further Foley catheter tray patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | C.R. Bard, Inc | Company | C.R. Bard, Inc. — global medical device company, manufacturer of competing Foley catheter tray systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen E. Hoover | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Charles Wood | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Angela Campbell Tarasi | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett M. Sandford | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Eutermoser | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher C. Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Courtney Elizabeth Cronin | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erik Milch | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erin M Estevez | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gabrielle Lahatte | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory K. Sobolski | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gwen Hochman Stewart | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James P. Brogan | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Frank Marinelli | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc N. Zubick | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Zambarda | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maximilian A. Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Naina Soni | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathaniel Carrick Love | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole L. Little | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Joseph Sauer | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stanley Allen Schlitter | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephanie Pauline Smith Koh | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Crawford Crenshaw | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Terra Reynolds | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas David Rein | Attorney | Counsel for Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cooley LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Irwin IP LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kelley Drye & Warren LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Latham & Watkins LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sidley Austin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steptoe, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medline Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Athena Diane Dalton | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bianca A Fox | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dawn Marie David | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dylan J Raife | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jared Weston Newton | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Raleigh O’Donnell | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan McNeal Smith | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura Lucille Fairneny | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc Lawrence Kaplan | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew A Traupman | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Molly K Moore | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicole M. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raymond N. Nimrod | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott Watson | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Cherny | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd H. Flaming | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent J. Belusko | Attorney | Counsel for C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP | Law Firm | Representing C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Law Firm | Representing C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP | Law Firm | Representing C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Todd Flaming LLC | Law Firm | Representing C.R. Bard, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
US9808400B2 — Foley catheter insertion tray system for CAUTI prevention
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9808400B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable ERASE CAUTI-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedMedline Industries, Inc.’s broader IP enforcement history
Medline Industries, Inc.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Parallel IPR activity may have shaped the dismissal timing and terms
Cases running 2,700+ days in N.D. Ill. typically involve parallel PTAB proceedings that suspend or complicate district court schedules. Any inter partes review petitions filed against the four asserted patents would have directly affected claim scope and litigation strategy — and may explain why the parties waited until 2025 to resolve a 2017 filing. Checking PTAB records for these application numbers is a critical due-diligence step.
Conversion clause creates a de facto settlement deadline — a drafting signal worth tracking
The automatic-conversion-to-with-prejudice mechanism is an uncommon but increasingly used drafting technique that effectively sets a private settlement deadline in the public court record. It suggests the parties had reached substantive agreement but needed a brief window for final execution. Practitioners advising on settlement structures in long-running medical device cases should note this approach as a template for managing reinstatement risk.
Medline v C.R. — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on March 21, 2025, via a stipulated Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal. The dismissal contained an automatic conversion clause: if no party moved to reinstate by April 20, 2025, the dismissal would convert to one with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own litigation costs.
Medline asserted four US patents: US9808400B2 (App. No. 14/265909), US9745088B2 (App. No. 14/793455), US9795761B2 (App. No. 13/153265), and US9808596B2 (App. No. 15/067903). All relate to Foley catheter insertion tray systems and CAUTI-prevention device configurations.
A dismissal without prejudice normally permits the plaintiff to refile. However, the automatic conversion clause here set a 30-day deadline: if neither party moved to reinstate the case by April 20, 2025, the dismissal automatically became one with prejudice — permanently barring Medline from reasserting these claims against Bard in the same forum. This mechanism is consistent with parties finalising a confidential settlement.
No. The case resolved via stipulated dismissal before any merits adjudication. There is no publicly recorded claim construction order, validity ruling, or infringement finding. The four asserted Medline patents remain presumptively valid and unadjudicated as to infringement by Bard’s Foley tray products.
The public record does not specify the precise causes of delay. However, cases of this duration in N.D. Ill. involving multiple patents typically involve parallel PTAB inter partes review proceedings, extensive claim construction briefing, and complex damages discovery. The large number of counsel on both sides — eight plaintiff firms and five defense firms — is consistent with high-stakes, multi-front litigation that took years to reach a negotiated resolution.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.