Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 02/17/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
C.R. BARD, INC., BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR,
INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant
______________________
2022-1136, 2022-1186
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Utah in No. 2:12-cv-00032-RJS, Judge Robert J.
Shelby.
______________________
Decided: February 17, 2023
______________________
KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiffs-ap-
pellants. Also represented by WILLIAM ADAMS, MATTHEW
A. TRAUPMAN, New York, NY; STEVEN CHERNY, Boston,
MA; GREGORY MIRAGLIA, Austin, TX; OMAR KHAN, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY;
THOMAS SAUNDERS, Washington, DC.
ALFRED W. ZAHER, I, Montgomery McCracken Walker
Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 02/17/2023
2 C.R. BARD, INC. v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
& Rhoads LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for defendant-
cross-appellant. Also represented by JOHN J. POWELL,
JOSEPH E. SAMUEL, JR; AARON S. HALEVA; CLINTON EARL
DUKE, JAMES MARK GIBB, Durham Jones & Pinegar, PC,
Salt Lake City, UT; JOSEPH MONAHAN, Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
JEFFREY COSTAKOS, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee,
WI, for amicus curiae Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. Also rep-
resented by MICHELLE A. MORAN, REBECCA JAN PIROZZOLO-
MELLOWES.
DANIELLE VINCENTI TULLY, Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae AngioDy-
namics, Inc. Also represented by JOHN T. AUGELLI, JOHN
MOEHRINGER, MICHAEL BRIAN POWELL.
______________________
Before CHEN, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal a decision from the United
States District Court for the District of Utah finding the
asserted claims for three asserted patents ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendant-Cross-Appellant Medical
Components, Inc. cross-appeals a decision from the same
court, also finding the asserted claims of its asserted patent
ineligible under § 101. Because the district court’s opinions
are contrary to our binding precedent in C R Bard Inc. v.
AngioDynamics, Inc., we reverse the district court’s opinion
in the lead appeal (22-1136) and vacate and remand the
district court’s opinion in the cross-appeal (22-1186).
I
Plaintiffs-Appellants C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Bard) own three
patents at issue in the lead appeal that are directed to
Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 02/17/2023
C.R. BARD, INC. v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC. 3
radiopaque markings and structural features that can be
used to identify whether a venous access port is power
injectable. Specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,785,302 and
7,947,022 are directed to a venous access port with an
alphanumeric message that can be seen on an X-ray and
that identifies the port as power injectable. Representative
claim 5 of the ’302 patent claims:
A venous access port assembly for implantation
into a patient, comprising:
a housing having an outlet, and a needle-pene-
trable septum, the needle penetrable septum
and the housing together defining a reservoir,
wherein:
the assembly includes a radiopaque alpha-
numeric message observable through in-
teraction with X-rays subsequent to
subcutaneous implantation of the assem-
bly, and
the alphanumeric message indicating that
the assembly is power injectable.
’302 patent at 13:8–18.
U.S. Patent No. 7,959,615 is
directed to a venous access port that includes a concave
structure designed to be palpated through the skin, and
that also identifies the port as power injectable. Claim 8 of
the ’615 patent claims:
An access port for providing subcutaneous access to
a patient, comprising:
a body defining a cavity accessible by inserting
a needle through a septum, the body including
a plurality of side surfaces and a bottom sur-
face bounded by a bottom perimeter, the bot-
tom surface on a side of the port opposite the
septum, the bottom perimeter including a con-
cave portion, the side surfaces including a first
Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 02/17/2023
4 C.R. BARD, INC. v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
side surface through which an outlet stem ex-
tends; and
at least one structural feature of the access
port identifying the access port as being power
injectable subsequent to subcutaneous implan-
tation, at least one structural feature compris-
ing at least one concave side surface in a second
side surface different from the first side sur-
face, the concave side surface extending to the
bottom perimeter concave portion.
’615 patent at 13:23–14:7.
Medical Components, Inc. (MedComp) owns
U.S.
Patent No. 8,021,324 which, like Bard’s patents, is directed
to a venous access port assembly that includes characters
that can be seen via X-ray inspection and that identify the
port as power injectable. Representative claim 1 claims:
An implantable venous access port assembly, com-
prising:
a needle-penetrable septum; and
a housing securing the needle-penetrable
septum, the housing comprising a housing
base having a bottom wall and X-ray dis-
cernable indicia embedded in the bottom
wall, the X-ray discernable indicia com-
prising one or more characters that visu-
ally indicate, under X-ray examination, a
pressure property of the port assembly.
’324 patent at 4:37–45.
Both parties moved for summary judgment, each
asserting that the respective asserted patents were invalid
under
35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court found that the
asserted claims in each of Bard’s three patents were
ineligible under § 101 because the claims were solely
directed to non-functional printed matter and because the
Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 02/17/2023
C.R. BARD, INC. v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC. 5
claims were directed to the abstract idea of “[using] an
identifier to communicate information about the power
injectability of the underlying port” with no inventive
concept. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.,
550
F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1225 (D. Utah 2021). The district court
then found the asserted claims of MedComp’s ’324 patent
ineligible under § 101 based on the same analytical
framework that it used for Bard’s asserted patents. C.R.
Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.,
569 F. Supp. 3d
1164, 1170–71 (D. Utah 2021).
Both parties cross-appealed. This court has jurisdiction
under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II
We review orders granting summary judgment under
the law of the regional circuit, while applying our own law
to issues unique to patent law. Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor
Techs., Inc.,
915 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The
Tenth Circuit reviews orders granting summary judgment
de novo. Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
812 F.3d 1238, 1251
(10th Cir. 2015). We review an “ultimate conclusion on
patent eligibility de novo.” In re Marco Guldenaar Holding
B.V.,
911 F.3d 1157, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
III
We are bound by our precedent in C R Bard Inc. v.
AngioDynamics, Inc.,
979 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
There, we considered a case that is virtually identical to
the one before us now. AngioDynamics also involved
patents directed to radiopaque markers that could be used
to identify venous access ports as power injectable, and the
claims at issue were substantially similar to the asserted
claims here. Furthermore, that case asked to consider the
exact same question that is before us now: whether claims
that include non-functional printed matter could be eligible
under § 101. The court in AngioDynamics concluded that,
although the asserted claims contained some non-
Case: 22-1136 Document: 59 Page: 6 Filed: 02/17/2023
6 C.R. BARD, INC. v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
functional printed matter, they were nonetheless eligible
under § 101 because the claims were not solely directed to
non-functional printed matter—they were also directed to
“the means by which that information is conveyed.” Id. at
1384. Given these similarities, we must reach the same
conclusion here as in AngioDynamics.
Because we are bound by our precedent, we conclude
that the asserted claims in Bard’s three patents are
directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s opinion in the
lead appeal and find that the asserted claims of the ’302,
’022, and ’615 patents are eligible under § 101. And because
the district court applied the same erroneous § 101
analysis to MedComp’s ’324 patent, we vacate and remand
the district court’s opinion in the cross appeal and direct
the district court to reconsider its findings in the first
instance, consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND
REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
