CR Bard v. Medical Components

Filing 765

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Granting Motion for Summary Judgment DKT. 750 and Denying Motion for Summary Judgment DKT. 460 as Moot. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 11/3/2021. (reb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
C.R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey corporation,
and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR,
INC., an Arizona corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 750)
AND DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 460) AS
MOOT

Plaintiffs,
v.
MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation,

2:12-cv-00032-RJS-DAO
Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Defendant.

Before the court are Plaintiff C.R. Bard, Inc. and Plaintiff Bard Peripheral Vascular,
Inc.’s (Bard’s) two Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Medical Components, Inc.’s
(MedComp’s) U.S. Patent No. 8,021,324.1 For the reasons explained below, the court GRANTS
the second Motion2 and DENIES the first Motion3 as moot.
FACTS
Bard and MedComp develop, produce, and market various vascular access devices,
including subcutaneous access ports. Access ports provide a convenient method of delivering
infusions of medicine, blood products, or other fluids without requiring surgical procedures.4
Power injection machines employing high pressure are sometimes used to deliver fluids through

1

Dkt. 460; Dkt. 750.

2

Dkt. 750.

3

Dkt. 460.

4

See Dkt. 585-2 (Bard’s Redacted Tutorial Exhibit) at 4.

1

access ports.5 Unlike regular access ports that can fracture and cause significant bodily injury if
subjected to power injection, special power-injectable ports are designed to withstand high
pressures.6 Generally, access ports offered by different manufacturers and different models
exhibit similar geometries, making it difficult to differentiate between power injectable ports and
regular access ports once they have been implanted in the body of a patient.7 Access port
manufacturers thus seek methods of adding identifiers to their ports to enable identification of
power-injectability following implantation.8 The various iterations of port identification
methods comprise the heart of the patent disputes between Bard and MedComp.
Bard asserts three patents in this case—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,785,302 (the ’302 Patent);
7,947,022 (the ’022 Patent), and 7,959,615 (the ’615 Patent)—relating to the radiopaque
identification of subcutaneous access ports.9 MedComp’s counterclaim asserts U.S. Patent No.
8,021,324 (the ’324 Patent).10 Like the Bard Patents at issue, the ’324 Patent uses radiopaque
indicia to identify features of a subcutaneous access port after implantation.11
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 11, 2012, Bard filed the instant action against MedComp, alleging
infringement of the ’022, ’302, and ’615 Patents.12 On March 14, 2012, MedComp answered

5

See id. at 15–18.

6

See id. at 20, 23–24.

7

See id. at 26–27.

See id. at 29–33; see also Dkt. 579 (Disk with MedComp’s Technology Tutorial) at 26–30 (on file with Clerk’s
Office).
8

9

Dkt. 69 (Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 7–10.

10

See Dkt. 640 (Second Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaims) at 27–28.

11

Dkt. 19-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,021,324) at 1.

12

Dkt. 2 ¶¶ 11–20.

2

and counterclaimed, alleging Bard infringed its ’324 Patent.13 On December 17, 2012, the case
was stayed and administratively closed while the patents-in-suit underwent inter partes
reexamination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.14 On October 4, 2019, the
stay was lifted.15 Fact discovery closed on February 8, 2021. The parties completed claim
construction briefing on April 2, 2021, and conducted a technology tutorial for the court on April
28, 2021.16
Bard filed its first Motion for Summary Judgment on March 5, 2021,17 and MedComp
filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment on the same day.18 Bard argued the ’324 Patent
must be invalidated because Bard’s PowerPort MRI was prior art.19 MedComp argued, inter
alia, that it was entitled to summary judgment on the invalidity of Bard’s asserted patents under
35 U.S.C. § 101.20 On July 22, 2021, this court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order (the
Order) partially granting MedComp’s Motion for Summary Judgment.21 The court found that
Bard’s three asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims at issue
were directed solely to non-functional printed matter and contained no additional inventive
concept.22

13

Dkt. 19 ¶¶ 33–35.

14

Dkt. 93 (Memorandum Decision and Order Administratively Closing Case).

15

See Dkt. 161 (Order Reopening Case).

See Dkt. 539 (Bard’s Memorandum in Opposition to MedComp’s Motion to Consolidate) at 2–3 (summarizing
procedural history).
16

17

Dkt. 460.

18

Dkt. 463.

19

See Dkt. 460 at 17–29.

20

Dkt. 463 at 10–22.

21

Dkt. 715-1 (Memorandum Decision and Order).

See id. While the court granted MedComp’s request for summary judgment on the issue of patent invalidity, it
deferred consideration of MedComp’s request for summary judgment on Bard’s alleged infringement of
MedComp’s asserted patent.
22

3

At the court’s invitation, Bard filed a new Motion for Summary Judgment (the Motion)
challenging MedComp’s ’324 Patent based on the framework set forth in the court’s Order.23
The court now turns to Bard’s Motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”24 A dispute is genuine “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”25 A fact
is material if, under the governing substantive law, it could “affect the outcome of the suit.”26
When applying this standard, the court “view[s] the evidence and make[s] all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”27
ANALYSIS
The court first summarizes the framework from its earlier Order, in which it found that
Bard’s three asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the asserted claims
were directed only to abstract ideas. Next, the court analyzes MedComp’s asserted patent using
the same framework, first ascertaining the undisputed facts and then applying the law of the case
to MedComp’s ’324 Patent.

23

See Dkt. 721 (Docket Text Order); Dkt. 750 (Bard’s new Motion for Summary Judgment).

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

25

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Id.; see also United States v. Simons, 129 F.3d 1386, 1388 (10th Cir. 1997) (“The substantive law of the case
determines which facts are material.”).
26

27

N. Natural Gas Co. v. Nash Oil & Gas, Inc., 526 F.3d 626, 629 (10th Cir. 2008).

4

a. The AngioDynamics and Alice Frameworks
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patentable subject matter includes “any new or useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”28
The Federal Circuit “has generally found printed matter to fall outside the scope of § 101.”29
“While historically ‘printed matter’ referred to claim elements that literally encompassed
‘printed’ material, the doctrine has evolved over time to guard against attempts to monopolize
the conveyance of information using any medium.”30 Accordingly, under the printed matter
doctrine, printed matter cannot be patented “unless it is functionally related to . . . the structural
elements of the claimed invention.”31 In the AngioDynamics decision, the Federal Circuit set out
a two-step inquiry to determine if a claim limitation is directed solely to printed matter.32 The
Federal Circuit then applied what is known as the Alice framework to determine if claimed
printed matter was patent eligible.33
In its prior Order, the court applied the AngioDynamics inquiry and Alice framework to
the Bard Patents and found they were invalid under § 101. Specifically, the court first found
under AngioDynamics, Bard’s asserted claim limitations were directed solely to printed matter
with no additional inventive concept.34 Next, the court determined the Bard Patents were invalid

28

35 U.S.C. § 101.

29

AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

30

C R Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

31

Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

32

Id. at 1381–82; see also Dkt. 715-1 at 25 (summarizing the AngioDynamics inquiry).

33

AngioDynamics, 979 F.3d at 1382–84.

34

See Dkt. 715-1 at 25–29 (applying AngioDynamics, 979 F.3d at 1381–82).

5

under the Alice framework, which determines whether a patent is invalid for being directed
toward a patent ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea.35
Under the AngioDynamics inquiry, “a claim may be patent ineligible under § 101 on the
grounds that it is: (1) directed solely to non-functional printed matter and (2) the claim contains
no additional inventive concept.”36 The claims at issue in Bard’s ’302 and ’022 Patents required
a radiopaque identifier conveying to a medical practitioner that the implanted port is power
injectable, and the claim at issue in the ’615 Patent required a structural feature with at least one
concave side, also conveying that the implanted port is suitable for power injection.37 The court
found at step one of the inquiry these asserted claims were directed solely to non-functional
printed matter: in the case of ’302 and ’022 Patents, by using radiopaque identifiers to
communicate that subcutaneous access ports were suitable for power injection, and in the case of
the ’615 Patent, by using a concave surface to communicate the same idea.38 At step two of the
AngioDynamics inquiry, the court found the Bard Patents contained no additional inventive
concept because the focus of each claimed advance was using the radiopaque or concave
identifying features in conjunction with a typically-constructed access port to convey the
information that the access port is power injectable.39
The court then moved to the two-step Alice inquiry, under which it determines whether a
claim is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by distinguishing patent-ineligible claims for
abstract ideas from patent-eligible applications of abstract ideas.40 At step one, the court asked

35

See id. at 29–40 (applying Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)).

36

Dkt. 715-1 at 25 (citing AngioDynamics, 979 F.3d at 1383).

37

See Dkt. 715-1 at 25–26 (discussing the Bard Patents).

38

Dkt. 715-1 at 25–28.

39

Id. at 28.

40

Id. at 23–25 (discussing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–18).

6

whether the claims at issue, in their entirety, were directed to ineligible subject matter.41 The
court found all the asserted claims were directed to using a specific identifier—either a
radiopaque identifier or a structural element including at least one concave side—to
communicate information to a medical practitioner that the access port in question is power
injectable subsequent to implantation.42 The court further noted the claims were not directed to
an improvement in port technology, there was no description in the claim language describing
how the radiopaque identifiers or concave side surfaces are generated, and the claims contained
no discussion of the X-ray technology used to view the radiopaque identifiers after
implantation—in other words, the claims provided no functional improvement to the port itself
or the X-ray technology used to view radiopaque identifiers.43 Thus, because each asserted claim
centered only on the use of an identifier to communicate information about the power
injectability of the underlying port, the court found the claims were directed to an abstract idea.44
At Alice step two, the court analyzed the claims to determine whether they contained an
inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application,45 and found the claims in the ’302 and ’022 Patents did not contain an inventive
concept because the use of a radiopaque identifier to convey information was not inventive.46
The court noted that MedComp had provided “numerous pieces of evidence supporting its
argument that radiopaque identifiers were well-understood, routine, and conventional to those

41

Id. at 30.

42

Id. at 31–32.

43

Id. at 31.

44

Id. at 32.

45

Id. (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 217).

46

Id. at 33–37.

7

skilled in the art of implantable medical devices.”47 The court further found the ’615 Patent did
not contain an inventive concept because the asserted claim about the required structural feature
of one concave side was also routine and conventional in the medical device field.48
Having found the claims at issue were directed to the ineligible abstract idea of
communicating information and lacked an inventive concept, the court accordingly held the
asserted claims of the ’302, ’022, and ’615 Patents were invalid under § 101, and granted
MedComp’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Bard Patents’ invalidity.49
The Order, and its interpretation of AngioDynamics and Alice, is now law of the case.50
Accordingly, the court will evaluate the ’324 Patent under the same framework.
b. MedComp’s ’324 Patent
Bard argues that given the court’s Order finding the ’302, ’022, and ’615 Patents invalid
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the ’324 Patent must also be found invalid.51 MedComp does not contest
Bard’s argument.52 The court agrees that the ’324 Patent is invalid under law of the case.

47

Id. at 34.

48

Id. at 37–40.

49

Id. at 40.

See, e.g., Grigsby v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1215, 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, once a court decides an issue,
the same issue may not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings in the same case.”) (internal citations and quotation
omitted). There are only three “exceptionally narrow” reasons to depart from law of the case, none of which are
implicated here: “(1) when the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) when controlling
authority has subsequently made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues; or (3) when the decision
was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Id. n.4 (citing Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship,
262 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2001)).
50

51

See Dkt. 750 at 1–2 (summarizing argument). In asserting this argument, Bard maintains it disagrees with the
court’s Order and reserves the right to challenge it once it becomes final. See id. at 1 n.1.
Dkt. 759 (Opposition) at 1 (“MedComp . . . does not find fault with the Court’s Summary Judgment Order.
MedComp will accept the consequences of the Court’s application of the same . . . analysis with respect to
MedComp’s asserted ’324 Patent claims.”).
52

8

i.

The Material Facts are Undisputed

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Bard provides a Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts concerning the ’324 Patent’s independent and dependent claims.53 MedComp only
disputes one of these facts: it correctly notes the title of the ’324 Patent is “Venous Access Port
Assembly With X-Ray Discernable Indicia,” not “Venous Access Port With X-Ray Discernable
Indicia,” as indicated in Bard’s Motion.54 With no other material facts disputed, the court adopts
the rest of the undisputed facts set forth in Bard’s Motion.55
MedComp, however, does dispute some of Bard’s characterizations of the record.56 The
court briefly discusses each disputed characterization, but finds none of these disagreements
ultimately material to the Motion.
First, MedComp argues Bard mischaracterizes its Provisional Application disclosure of
“a metal disk in the bottom of plastic port” as an invalidating prior invention and maintains that
this does not constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, and further that this is “an
attempt by Bard to perpetuate the misconception that the conception date of the inventions
claimed in the ’324 Patent is later than the date of Bard’s Provisional Application.”57 Second,
MedComp argues Bard mischaracterizes the Provisional Application disclosure as evidence of
what is routine and conventional, and argues “the mere fact that a patent description teaches or
suggests a claimed element does not make the element ‘routine’ or ‘conventional’ for purposes

53

Dkt. 750 at 3–5.

54

Compare id. at 3 with Dkt. 759 at 1.

55

See Dkt. 750 at 3–5.

56

Dkt. 759 at 1–3.

57

See Dkt. 759 at 1–2. MedComp also notes that the Provisional Application in question here is the one Bard
allegedly deceived the USPTO about to “obtain an illegitimate priority date for its asserted patents.”

9

of the Alice patent eligibility test.”58 But MedComp does not dispute there is other prior art that
incorporates radiopaque markers in the object to be identified. In fact, MedComp identified this
prior art at some length in its own Motion for Summary Judgment.59 Whether Bard’s Provisional
Application is considered prior art or not is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the instant
Motion given the body of prior art MedComp has already identified.
Third, MedComp notes that Bard asserts similarity in embodiments of the access port
described in the ’324 Patent, and “disputes Bard’s inference that this somehow establishes noninventiveness.”60 MedComp further argues “Bard’s conclusion that ‘MedComp’s claims do not
provide for any functional improvement in the X-ray technology’ is entirely divorced from that
comparison.”61 Bard notes in its Reply, however, the conclusion is not divorced from the
comparison because it did list an example of how MedComp’s claims do not provide
improvement.62 Regardless of the level of similarity between the ports, the central point is that
the embodiment of the access port itself is not inventive, as the court discussed in its prior Order
discussing the Bard Patents.63 Therefore, this characterization is also not relevant to the ultimate
disposition of the Motion.
Fourth and finally, MedComp disputes that the ’324 Patent has only two embodiments:
cut-outs and stamped discrete elements bearing the letters “CT.”64 Rather, MedComp asserts
that each embodiment represents “a genus of two species,” “one where the indicia is fully

58

Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79–80 (2012)).

59

See Dkt. 463 at 16–22.

60

Dkt. 759 at 2.

61

Id.

62

Dkt. 762 (Reply) at 4 (citing Dkt. 750 at 10).

63

See Dkt. 715-1 at 30–40.

64

Dkt. 759 at 2.

10

embedded in the port body such that it is not visible from below, and another where it is only
partially embedded such that it is visible from below.”65 MedComp further asserts the indicia
can be any character, including alphabetical letters and numbers, and argues that this “raises an
important point of distinction between the Bard claims and the claims of the ’324 Patent for the
Court’s consideration.”66 Bard rejoins that MedComp’s claims potentially incorporating “a
larger set of characters including letters and/or numbers” does not “weigh in favor of
patentability . . . under § 101.”67 Indeed, no matter which characters are used, the claimed
innovation of the ’324 Patent—like the Bard Patents—is using radiopaque indicia to
communicate information about the access port to medical professionals. The court agrees with
Bard that the precise characters used to communicate that information are immaterial for
purposes of evaluating the instant Motion.
Having found none of the disputes concerning Bard’s characterizations of the facts are
material to the Summary Judgment Motion, the court will apply the law of the case to the
undisputed facts surrounding MedComp’s ’324 Patent.
ii.

The ’324 Patent is Invalid Under the Law of the Case

The ’324 Patent’s asserted independent claim 1 consists of:
An implantable venous access port assembly, comprising: 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 discernable indicia
comprising one or more characters that visually indicate, under X-ray
examination, a pressure property of the port assembly.68
Similarly, independent claim 19 consists of:

65

Id.

66

Id. at 3.

67

Dkt. 762 at 5.

68

Dkt. 19-1 at 11 (Claim 1).

11

An implantable venous access port assembly, comprising: a housing comprising a
housing base comprising a bottom wall and radiopaque indicia embedded in the
bottom wall of the housing base, the radiopaque indicia comprising one or more
characters indicating a pressure property of the port assembly under X-ray
examination; a needle-penetrable septum; and a cap securing the needlepenetrable septum to the housing.69
Like the three Bard Patents, the asserted claims of the ’324 Patent consist of an access port with
radiopaque indicia to indicate a pressure property of the port. The issue is whether these asserted
claims are patent ineligible under § 101 and the printed matter doctrine.
First, to determine whether the claims may be patent ineligible, the court turns to the
AngioDynamics inquiry, under which “a claim may be patent ineligible under § 101 on the
grounds that it is (1) directed solely to non-functional printed matter and (2) the claim contains
no additional inventive concept.”70
Under the first step of the AngioDynamics inquiry, the ’324 Patent’s independent claims
are directed solely to non-functional printed matter. The ’324 Patent’s independent claims
describe venous access port assemblies and the radiopaque identification feature directed to
conveying information about the port. Though the radiopaque indicia are embedded into the
bottom wall of the housing base, rather than included on the housing base as in Bard’s ’302 and
’022 Patents, the ’324 Patent’s sole function—like the Bard Patents—is to convey the
information that the port is power-injectable. The ’324 Patent’s Summary of the Invention
specifically highlights the X-ray identifiable feature: “The invention is the incorporation of X-ray
discernible indicia onto a venous access port that is discernible under X-ray examination to
provide information concerning the nature or key attribute of the venous access port, so that the

69

Id. at 12 (Claim 19).

70

See Dkt. 715-1 at 25 (citing AngioDynamics, 979 F.3d at 1383).

12

practitioner . . . can determine that nature or key attribute under X-ray examination.”71
Specifically, using the letters CT “would be understood in medical practice to indicate the port
is suitable for the high pressure injection.”72 Because the claimed invention is the particular
identifying features of the radiopaque indicia, the claims in the ’324 Patent are directed solely to
non-functional printed matter.
Under the second step of the AngioDynamics inquiry, the ’324 Patent contains no
additional inventive concept. Like the invalidated Bard Patents, the ’324 Patent recites the
assembly of a typical venous access port with the additional feature of the printed matter
conveying the information that the port is power-injectable.73 As this court stated in its prior
Order concerning the Bard Patents, “[b]eyond the printed matter, there are no other elements that
could be considered ‘inventive.’”74 Moreover, as discussed above, the fact that the ’324 Patent
may encompass a larger range of letters and numbers as part of its radiopaque indicia, or embed
those characters differently on the port, does not change this result. If the focus of the claimed
advance is on making the port identifiable via X-ray technology to medical practitioners—in
other words, to communicate information—it has no additional inventive concept, regardless of
the particular characters used. Therefore, under the AngioDynamics framework, the ’324 Patent
is directed solely to printed matter.
Having determined the claims are directed solely to printed matter under the
AngioDynamics inquiry, the court moves on to the two-step Alice framework to determine if the
claims comprise only patent-ineligible subject matter.

71

Dkt. 19-1 at 10.

72

Id.

73

See id. at 1 (Abstract), 10 (Summary of the Invention).

74

Dkt. 715-1 at 28.

13

At Alice step one, the court asks whether the claims at issue, in their entirety, are directed
to ineligible subject matter.75 The independent claims asserted are directed to the access port,
specifically the “X-ray discernable indicia embedded in the bottom wall . . . comprising one or
more characters that visually indicate . . . a pressure property of the port assembly.”76 In other
words, the claims are directed to communicating information about the characteristics of the
access ports. Because the radiopaque identifiers provide no functional improvement to the port
itself or to the X-ray technology used to view the identifiers, and the rest of the claimed
invention pertains to a typical access port, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. This is
patent ineligible subject matter.
At Alice step two, the court analyzes the claims to determine whether they include an
inventive concept sufficient to make them a patent-eligible application.77 As discussed in the
prior Order, “the addition of a non-functional radiopaque identifier to a known product is not an
inventive concept.”78 Here, the ’324 Patent’s specification describes the invention as the
“incorporation of X-ray discernable indicia . . . to provide information concerning the nature or
key attribute of the venous access port.”79 As discussed, the two embodiments therein are
described as a “genus of two species – one where the indicia is fully embedded in the port body
such that it is not visible from below and another where it is only partially embedded such that it
is visible from below,”80 which can include any character.81 While the parties dispute the extent

75

See Dkt. 715-1 at 29 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18).

Dkt. 19-1 at 11 (Claim 1); see also id. at 12 (Claim 19) (“radiopaque indicia embedded in the bottom wall . . .
comprising one or more characters indicating a pressure property of the port.”).
76

77

Dkt. 715-1 at 29 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18).

78

Dkt. 715-1 at 37.

79

Dkt. 19-1 at 10 (Summary of the Invention).

80

Dkt. 759 at 2.

81

See id.

14

to which these particular embodiments differentiate the claims in the ’324 Patent from the Bard
Patents, the claimed inventive concept, at bottom, is an access port with radiopaque indicia used
for the purpose of informing medical practitioners of the pressure capacity of the port. As with
the Bard Patents, there is no additional inventive concept because radiopaque identifiers are not
new within the medical device field.82 Because the radiopaque identifiers only communicate an
abstract idea, the claims in the ’324 Patent do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to
render them a patent-eligible application.
In summary, using the prior Order’s framework, now law of the case, the asserted claims
in Patent ’324 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the use of radiopaque identifiers on a
typical access port does not constitute an inventive concept. Therefore, Bard’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on MedComp’s asserted Patent is GRANTED.83
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the
’324 Patent is GRANTED.84 Additionally, Bard’s first Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED as moot.85
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge

82

See Dkt. 715-1 at 33–37 (explaining that the use of radiopaque identifiers is not inventive).

83

Dkt. 750.

84

Dkt. 750.

85

Dkt. 460.

15