## Facts

- Bard owned U.S. Patent No. 4,581,017, a method patent claiming use of a balloon catheter with blood-flow channels adjacent to the balloon to permit perfusion during coronary angioplasty.
- The patented method addressed reduced blood flow during balloon inflation in percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, which can cause angina or myocardial infarction.
- ACS manufactured and sold an FDA-approved “perfusion catheter” with multiple openings intended to permit blood flow during angioplasty.
- Bard alleged that when physicians used ACS’s catheter in standard angioplasty, the use necessarily practiced claim 1 and made ACS liable for inducement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
- ACS contested infringement, asserting its catheter could be used in noninfringing ways, including procedures where the perfusion openings remained in the aorta (e.g., when stenoses were near the coronary ostium).

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper that ACS induced infringement or contributorily infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)–(c) despite evidence of substantial noninfringing uses.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper that the claimed method was not invalid for obviousness in view of disputed prior-art and related factual questions.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment rulings on infringement and validity and remanded.
- On § 271(b)–(c), the court held that disputed facts existed on whether the catheter was suitable for substantial noninfringing use and on the knowledge required for contributory infringement/inducement.
- On obviousness, the court held that disputed underlying factual determinations (prior art, differences from the claims, and ordinary skill) made summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires active and knowing assistance of another’s direct infringement.
- Contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) requires sale of a component especially made or adapted for infringing use, knowledge of that infringing adaptation, and that the component is not a staple article suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
- Whether an accused product is suitable for “substantial noninfringing use” is typically a fact question; competing evidence on actual and practical noninfringing uses can preclude summary judgment.
- In medical method cases, the direct infringer is ordinarily the physician performing the procedure; liability of a device seller under § 271(b)–(c) must rest on the statutory elements rather than on the device’s association with a patented method.
- Obviousness is a question of law that depends on underlying factual findings; when those factual inquiries are disputed, summary judgment on obviousness is generally improper.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that factual disputes about the catheter’s noninfringing uses, ACS’s knowledge, and the content and implications of the prior art required reversal of summary judgment on both infringement theories and nonobviousness, with the case remanded for further proceedings.


C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1990)