Court Opinion

ID: 9372024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 17:00:32.577207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.828248
License: Public Domain

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        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.