C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., No. 15-218 (Robinson, J.) (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2016)


8,475,417 | Entitled “Assemblies for identifying a power injectable access port”
8,545,460 | Entitled “Infusion apparatuses and related methods”
8,805,478 | Entitled “Methods of performing a power injection procedure including identifying features of a subcutaneously implanted access port for delivery of contrast media”


Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss asserting claims are ineligible under § 101

Abstract Idea:


Something More:



Methods of performing a power injection medical procedure and assemblies for identifying a power injectable vascular access port.


The court determined that the claims of the ’478 patent are directed to the abstract idea of looking at an x-ray to determine whether the access port carries an identification feature and identifying such feature.  The defendant argued that the claims do not actually recite a single structural element that is inventive or distinctive of power injection with “conventional” port structure and would cover the very prior art the patent criticized.  The plaintiff responded that there is “something more” and that there are “distinct identifiable features.  From there the court determined that it could not dismiss the case on the record as the parties’ arguments conflated a § 101 analysis with anticipation and obviousness which require claim construction and discovery.  The same was true with the parties’ arguments regarding the ’417 and ’460 patents.

Judge Robinson provided pointed dicta regarding § 101 jurisprudence” in her summary of the law:

“[the court is] struck by the evolution of the § 101 jurisprudence, from the complete rejection of patentability for computer programs to the almost complete acceptance of such, to the current (apparent) requirements that the patent claims in suit (1) disclose a problem “necessarily rooted in computer technology,” and (2) claim a solution that (a) not only departs from the “routine and conventional” use of the technology, but (b) is sufficiently specific so as to negate the risk of pre-emption.”