CR Bard v. AngioDynamics ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE C.R. BARD, INC. and BARD ) PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim- ) Defendants, ) ) C.A. No. 20-1544-CFC-SRF V. ) ) ANGIODYNAMICS, INC., ) ) Defendant/Counterclaim- _) Plaintiff. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before me is “Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1: That The Asserted Claims Are Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” D.I. 503. Plaintiffs (collectively, Bard) seek by the motion an order declaring that “Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,785,302; claims 1-12, 14, 16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,947,022; and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,959,615 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” DI. 503 at 3. Bard argues that the Federal Circuit held in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Components, Inc., 2023 WL 2064163 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) (“MedComp’’) that “the asserted claims in Bard’s three patents [asserted in this case] are directed to eligible subject matter under [35 U.S.C.] § 101.” D.I. 504 at 1 (quoting MedComp, 2023 WL 2064163, at *1). Bard says that patent eligibility is a question of law and that the Federal Circuit “resolved” that question with respect to the asserted claims in this case in MedComp. D.I. 504 at 1. Defendant AngioDynamics, Inc. counters that MedComp is a non-precedential opinion that “did not address ineligibility under the theory Angio[Dyamics] intends to present” in this case. D.I. 554 at 5. There is language in MedComp that supports both parties’ positions. Bard is correct that the Federal Circuit expressly stated in MedComp that the asserted claims in this case “are directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.” 2023 WL 2064163, at *2. But before making that statement, the Court noted in its opinion that “the exact . .. question . . . before us now[] [is] whether claims that include non-functional printed matter could be eligible under § 101.” /d. I need not, however, engage in an exegesis of MedComp to resolve the pending motion. MedComp is a nonprecedential opinion. But more to the point, just as “courts do not declare patents to be valid, and only declare that they have not been proved to be invalid,” Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009), courts do not declare patents to be eligible under § 101, but instead declare only that a party has (or has not) established that a patent is ineligible under § 101. NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Third day of January in 2024, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1 (D.I. 503) is DENIED. CHIEF JUDGE