In re Medical Components, Inc.

In re Medical Components, Inc. The Federal Circuit denied mandamus. MedComp did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief based on an alleged conflict between the Utah court's post-remand ruling and the mandate in a different AngioDynamics appeal. The order underscores that mandamus is unlikely to police alleged mandate errors where the asserted mandate came from a separate proceeding rather than the same case. Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Bard accuses MedComp of infringing patents directed to systems and methods for identifying whether a venous access port is power injectable. After an earlier Federal Circuit remand following reversal of a § 101 ruling, MedComp sought summary judgment that the asserted claims were anticipated by the Jones patent. The district court denied summary judgment, construing disputed limitations such as “power injectable/suitable for power injection” as reflecting the port's functionality rather than mere printed matter, and finding Jones did not disclose a power-injectable port. MedComp sought mandamus, arguing the district court was required to give no patentable weight to the disputed limitations under AngioDynamics II. The Federal Circuit denied relief because the alleged mandate constraint arose from a different case, not the same proceeding, and MedComp did not satisfy the demanding mandamus standard. § 101 § 102 claim construction remand non-precedential § 102 claim construction remand non-precedential § 101 § 102 claim construction remand non-precedential