This website uses cookies. By using this website, you agree to our Cookie Policy.

Read Cookie Policy
DECLINE ALL
NON-ESSENTIAL COOKIES
Accept All Cookies

Cadwalader Secures Federal Circuit Win Affirming Invalidation of Bard’s Vascular Access Port Patents for AngioDynamics

December 16, 2025

After over 12 years of hard-fought litigation, which included two federal jury trials (one during a cyberattack) and two appeals, a panel of the Federal Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Chen, Lourie, and Reyna, delivered a resounding victory for Cadwalader’s longtime client AngioDynamics, affirming the complete invalidation for anticipation of the patents asserted by competitor C.R. Bard (a Becton Dickinson company) directed to power-injectable vascular access ports. The opinion is located here and Danielle Tully’s oral argument can be found here.

Following a jury trial in November 2022, the District of Delaware granted AngioDynamics’ motion for judgment as a matter of law that Bard’s patents were anticipated, ineligible, and indefinite. Citing the Cadwalader team’s cross examinations, trial presentations and evidence, and hard-fought admissions from discovery, the trial judge (Hon. Joseph Bataillon) concluded that “Bard's claim reconstructions at trial would render the claims invalid either for recitation of ineligible subject matter or indefiniteness, whereas adherence to the original claim construction renders the claims anticipated.” CR Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 675 F. Supp. 3d 462 (D. Del. 2023). Bard appealed all grounds and, rather than focus on the merits of anticipation, attempted to make its appeal primarily about procedure. This tactic failed: the panel only considered anticipation, deeming it alone dispositive, and did not grapple with procedure or “the other grounds on which the district court invalidated the claims.”

Like the trial judge, the panel sided with AngioDynamics across the board. It likewise highlighted cross from the Cadwalader trial team (e.g., “Bard’s expert’s agreement that port shape and basis features would be among usual identifiable attributes via x-ray left no room for a reasonable jury to reject the radiographic identifiability of the prior art ports”; “Bard’s expert admitted that ATP’s port shape, suture holes, and other attributes are perceivable via X-ray”), trial evidence and presentation, and admissions for discovery (e.g., “Another named inventor testified that ATP was for sure capable of withstanding the pressures of power injection.”). This appellate win marks the final and definitive win in this longstanding dispute against Bard, represented Quinn Emanuel and Morrison & Foerster, vindicating years of strategic advocacy by the Cadwalader team of patent litigators. 

The Cadwalader team included partners Danielle Tully and John Moehringer; special counsel Michael Powell and Michael Glenn; associates John Augelli, Michael Russo, Dash Cole, Cameron Kasanzew, and Emory Burns; staff attorney Jess Talar; paralegals Nick Ritzmann and Paul Wegner; and legal assistant Leiya Pujals.

Back to Top