C R Bard Inc. et al v. AngioDynamics Inc.

Filing 512

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The defendant's objections (D.I. 499 ) to the Magistrate Judge's denial (D.I. 498 ) of its motion to stay (D.I. 492 ) are overruled. The Memorandum and Order of the United States Magistrate Judge (D.I. 498 ) is adopted in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon on 4/13/2022. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

C R BARD INC. and BARD PERIPHERAL
VASCULAR, INC.,
CIV. NO. 15-218-JFB-SRF
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

vs.
ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

defendant/counterclaim

plaintiff

Angiodynamics, Inc.’s objections, D.I. 499, to the Memorandum and Order of the
Magistrate Judge, D.I. 498, on its motion to stay, D.I. 492. This patent infringement
action was remanded to this court for further proceedings.

See C.R. Bard Inc. v.

Angiodynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The case is set for trial in May
2022.
I.

BACKGROUND
The defendant moved to stay the trial of this action based on proceedings in a

case pending in another district that ostensibly involves the same patent eligibility
issues involved here. See C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular v. Medical
Components, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00032-RJS-DAO (D. Utah), appeal docketed, Nos. 221136; 22-1186 (Fed. Cir.) (“Bard v. MedComp”). The Magistrate Judge found that the
appeal in this case fully resolved issue of patent eligibility and therefore this case should
not be stayed while the Federal Circuit considers patent eligibility for a different set of
Bard patents. Defendant Angiodynamics objects, arguing that the law of the case does

not foreclose this Court from considering the potentially dispositive § 101 issues the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will soon address in the Bard v. MedComp
appeal. It contends it should be permitted to present the defense that the claims of the
patent are directed to an abstract idea.1
II.

LAW
The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on

magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters
are governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B).
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, two types of
referral and concomitant “levels of review depending on the scope and significance of
the magistrate’s decision” are authorized.

Gomez, 490 U.S. at 871.

Section

636(b)(1)(A) authorizes the Court to
designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter
pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment
on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an
indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in
a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to
involuntarily dismiss an action.
Id. A Magistrate Judge’s rulings on a nondispositive pretrial matter under § 636(b)(1)(A)
is subject to review by this Court when the ruling “is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A Magistrate Judge’s order is contrary to law when the

1

The parties elaborated on these positions in letters to the Court. D.I. 505, 508, and 509.
Angiodynamics again contends there is an open issue on patent eligibility and has requested additional
briefing and/or a hearing on the issue. The Court finds no hearing is necessary and that request is
denied.

2

magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable law. See Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). The court reviews findings of fact for clear
error and legal conclusions de novo. Id.; see also Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d
81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) (“the phrase ‘contrary to law’ indicates plenary review as to
matters of law”).
With respect to dispositive motions, the court may designate a magistrate judge
to conduct hearings, if necessary, and submit to the Court “proposed findings of fact
and recommendations for the disposition” of the pending motion.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If a party timely objects to the magistrate
judge’s findings, § 636(b)(1) requires the Court to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
III.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and the Magistrate Judge’s

order and finds no clear errors of fact or law. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the
Magistrate Judge acknowledges that this Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim before the
defendant had put on its evidence, but noted that the Federal Circuit reversed the
district court’s § 101 eligibility decision based on consideration of a full evidentiary
record. D.I. 498, Order at 7; see Angiodynamics, 979 F.3d at 1381. The Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that
The Federal Circuit did not remand the issue of § 101 eligibility of the '478,
'460, and '417 patents for further consideration by this court of additional
ineligibility arguments raised by Defendant. Instead, the Federal Circuit
reversed the holding of the district court and concluded that the asserted

3

claims of the '478, '460, and '417 patents are eligible under § 101. This is
the law of the case.
D.I. 498, Order at 6. This Court is not free to disregard the Federal Circuit’s explicit
holding that the claims are not patent ineligible under § 101. In its petition for rehearing
at the Federal Circuit, Angiodynamics acknowledged that the Circuit Court’s reversal of
this Court’s ruling on the § 101 issue foreclosed its ability to present its full range of
defenses against Bard’s infringement claims. See id. at 5. The subjects of the trial on
remand are infringement, willful infringement, and whether the asserted claims of the
patent are invalid as anticipated or obvious. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

The defendant’s objections (D.I. 499) to the Magistrate Judge’s denial (D.I.

498) of its motion to stay (D.I. 492) are overruled.
2.

The Memorandum and Order of the United States Magistrate Judge (D.I.

498) is adopted in its entirety.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2022.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

4