Back in 2019, the parties in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.A. 15-218-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) went to trial on infringement claims for a patent involving a "means of identification" of certain medical devices.
During trial, at the close of plaintiffs' case, visiting Judge Bataillon granted an oral FRCP 50(a) motion for JMOL for the defendant (wow!), finding that the patent was ineligible as directed to an abstract idea involving labeling and printed matter.
The Federal Circuit later reversed, holding that the claims were patent eligible. Defendant then sought rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's determination that the claims were patent eligible would cut off its ability to present other ineligibility arguments below. That petition was—unsurprisingly—denied.
Now, back at the district court, defendant moved to stay its now-seven-year-old action because another district court has since found a related set of patents ineligible based on § 101, and that decision is now on appeal.
Judge Fallon rejected that motion today, just 6 days after close of briefing:
Defendant suggests that this court is not foreclosed from considering ineligibility arguments beyond the printed matter issue that formed the basis of the Federal Circuit's eligibility determination. . . . But as Defendant acknowledged in its petition for panel rehearing, "[t]he panel's reversal on § 101 ... forecloses AngioDynamics's ability to 4 present its full range of defenses against Bard's infringement claims." . . . 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 claims of the '478, '460, and '417 patents are eligible under § 101. This is the law of the case.
In short: No, a reversal is a reversal. The new trial is set for May, 2022.
A New Trial 3 Years Later? Ouch
I didn't hear about this mid-trial JMOL back in 2019 when it happened. I imagine defendant's attorneys were ecstatic when they actually won an FRCP 50(a) motion at trial, something that doesn't usually happen.
But the subsequent history here shows one probable reason why it's not the norm: if the the case had gone to the jury, JMOL could still have been granted afterwards. If it had gone that way, there would be no need for the parties to gear up again, spend weeks in Delaware, re-prep their witnesses, and hold a new trial three years later.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
