As we have been reporting this week, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal numerous rulings by a district court, including rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, C.R. Bard makes numerous arguments. For example, it argues “[t]he district court erred when it again invalidated Bard’s claims based on subject matter ineligibility.” According to C.R. Bard, the Federal Circuit “already resolved eligibility when it held the same claims directed to eligible matter and reversed the district court’s first contrary judgment.” Bard emphasizes “[t]he mandate left no room for the district court to reconsider that issue.” Furthermore, Bard argues, the district court should not have granted a JMOL on indefiniteness; “[b]ecause indefiniteness was neither tried nor raised in any Rule 50 motion, the district court had no authority to grant JMOL on the issue.”
In its response brief, AngioDynamics likewise makes many arguments. For example, with respect to anticipation, it argues “[c]lear-and-convincing evidence established that Bard’s” patents disclosed each claimed method step. Furthermore, AngioDynamics contends, the “grant of JMOL of anticipation was procedurally proper and consistent with the mandate,” and “[t]he district court properly disregarded evidence and argument premised on Bard’s ‘claim construction debacle.’”
In its reply brief, C.R. Bard maintains that, on the issue of eligibility, AngioDynamics cannot overcome the Federal Circuit’s mandate, precedent, or the record. Furthermore, Bard contends, the district court made procedural and substantive errors in granting judgment as a matter of law.
An amicus brief was filed by Medical Components Inc. in support of AngioDynamics and affirmance. According to the brief, the appellants “swore under oath to the Patent Office” that the patent sought was for a “new access port for power injection that can be identified subcutaneously.” The brief alleges C.R. Bard “swore the opposite under oath to the Food and Drug Administration.” According to the brief, C.R. Bard “used its decades old conventional port” to obtain FDA certification for “its old device to be sold as a power injectable port.” Medical Components argues the difference between the devices is “the addition of a label,” which is “entitled to no patentable weight.” Thus, Medical Components contends, the district court’s judgment should be affirmed.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, October 8 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 201. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.