Bullpup Scientific Ltd v. Becton Dickinson Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bullpup Scientific Ltd. (Israel)
  • Defendant: Becton, Dickinson and Company (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00839, D.N.J., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having its principal place of business in New Jersey and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PowerGlide Pro Midline Catheter infringes a patent related to catheter insertion systems featuring a forward-extending arm and grip.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns intravenous (IV) catheter insertion devices, which are fundamental tools in modern healthcare for delivering fluids and medications over extended periods.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a lengthy history between the parties and their predecessors, beginning with discussions between the inventors and C.R. Bard, Inc. (later acquired by Defendant) from 2007-2011. Plaintiff alleges it disclosed its patent-pending technology to Defendant in 2015 and engaged in further discussions, including providing product samples and discussing a potential license, after the patent issued in 2019.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,413,706 - "Method and apparatus for inserting a catheter tube"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of inserting longer, more flexible intravenous catheters. It notes that when the operator's grip is located far from the insertion site (proximally), it reduces stability and increases the risk of the needle accidentally being pulled out of the vein before the catheter is fully inserted, requiring another puncture attempt Compl. ¶23-24 ’706 Patent, col. 1:45-53
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a catheter insertion system with a "forward arm" that is attachably connected to the catheter's proximal hub but extends distally, toward the patient. This arm provides a forward gripping point, located closer to the insertion site, which allows for a more stable and controlled insertion of the cannula into the vein ’706 Patent, col. 2:49-56, Abstract Figure 2A of the patent illustrates an embodiment of this forward arm (10) as a distinct component with a distal grip (12) and a proximal downward grip (15) for attachment.
• Technical Importance: This forward-grip design was intended to simplify the insertion of longer midline catheters, which can remain in a patient longer than short peripheral catheters, thereby reducing complications and the need for frequent re-insertions Compl. ¶12, 29

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 13 (method) Compl. ¶60
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An IV catheter comprising a distal cannula attached to a proximal hollow hub;
  • A forward arm attachably connected to a proximal portion of the IV catheter and extending distally;
  • A needle configured to pass through and protrude from the cannula;
  • The forward arm comprises a distal forward grip;
  • The forward arm comprises a middle section connecting the distal forward grip and a downward grip;
  • The downward grip is connected to the proximal end of the middle section and comprises two grasping arms extending downwards and substantially curved.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Becton, Dickinson and Company "PowerGlide Pro Midline Catheter" and associated kits (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶5, 48

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is a midline catheter insertion system marketed for providing vascular access for less than 30 days Compl. ¶44 The complaint alleges that a key modification from its predecessor product (the "Bard Powerglide") was moving the grip forward, toward the patient Compl. ¶47
• The device includes features referred to as "catheter wings" which are part of a structure that, according to the complaint, attaches to the catheter hub and extends distally Compl. ¶45, 66 Instructional materials provided in the complaint depict a user advancing the catheter into the patient's arm by pushing on these wings. This image from the product's instructions for use shows the user advancing the catheter by pushing the wings forward Compl. p. 32, ¶72 The Accused Product replaced the prior Bard Powerglide and is allegedly a significant product in the midline catheter market Compl. ¶41, 56

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'706 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's integrated structure, which includes features Defendant markets as "wings," constitutes a "forward arm" with the distinct elements of a "distal forward grip," "middle section," and "downward grip" as recited in the claim. A central question for the court may be whether the term "distal forward grip" can be construed to read on the "catheter wings" of the accused device.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's single molded component can be conceptually separated into the three distinct structural elements required by the latter half of claim 1? The complaint provides an annotated image suggesting the connection point at the hub functions as a "downward grip" with "two grasping arms" Compl. p. 29, ¶67, which may be a point of technical dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "forward arm"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept described in the patent. The entire infringement theory depends on the accused product's winged structure meeting this limitation. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term is limited to the discrete, articulated embodiments shown in the patent's figures or can be read more broadly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the invention relates to "an IV catheter with a forward arm attachably connected to the IV catheter proximal hub and extending distally therefrom" ’706 Patent, col. 2:50-52 This language could support a construction that covers any structure performing this function and meeting this general structural arrangement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures such as 2A, 6A, and 7A depict the "forward arm" as a distinct, elongated component with clearly separable grip, middle, and attachment sections. A party could argue that the term should be construed as limited to structures that resemble these specific embodiments, rather than a more integrated winged hub design.

The Term: "distal forward grip"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff maps this term directly onto the "catheter wings" of the Accused Product Compl. ¶66 The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether "wings" can be considered a "grip." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its "wings" are primarily for stabilization after insertion, not for gripping during insertion.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a special definition for "grip." Plaintiff may argue for a plain and ordinary meaning, which could be supported by the Accused Product's own instructional diagrams that show a user's fingers pushing on the wings to advance the catheter Compl. p. 32, suggesting they are, in fact, used as a grip.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict the "distal forward grip" (e.g., element 12 in Fig. 2A) as a specific structure that differs visually from the accused product's wings. A defendant may argue the claim term is implicitly limited to the types of structures disclosed in the specification's embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by alleging that Defendant provides customers with specific step-by-step instructions, product guides, and diagrams that instruct users on how to deploy the Accused Product in a manner that directly infringes the asserted method claims Compl. ¶80-88
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The allegations specify a long history of communications with Defendant and its predecessor, including discussions in 2015 about the patent-pending technology and further discussions in late 2019 and early 2020, after the patent had issued, where Defendant allegedly received product samples and inquired about licensing the '706 Patent itself Compl. ¶38, 52-55, 89

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the elements of claim 1—specifically the distinct "distal forward grip," "middle section," and "downward grip" of a "forward arm"—be found in the accused product's more integrated winged architecture, or is the claim scope limited to the more articulated structures depicted in the patent's figures?
• A key question for damages will be one of intent: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit and post-issuance communications, did Defendant's continued sale of the Accused Product, after allegedly being made aware of the '706 patent and its relevance, rise to the level of willful infringement?