C.R. Bard, Inc., et al. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., C.A. No. 15-218 -SLR, January 12, 2016.

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer are denied. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply is denied as moot.

Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation that sells its products in various states but it is not its “home turf.” There is litigation between the parties ongoing in Utah. Since defendant sold accused products in Delaware, it may be said that the claims arise in Delaware.  Plaintiff has chosen an appropriate forum. Defendant claims the case should be dismissed because of unpatentable subject matter of the patents-in-suit.  The patented technology relates to infusing a fluid into a patient. The court finds that the method claims merely describe the abstract mental step of identifying the allowable/intended flow rate of an implanted access port directly from an x-ray image of the implanted port. With respect to the second step in Alice regarding an inventive concept, the court declines to dismiss on the current record as claim construction or discovery may be needed. Similarly with respect to two additional patents-in-suit, the court finds the arguments more properly reserved to analysis on a full record and declines to dismiss.