AngioDynamics, Inc., and Navilyst Medical, Inc., Port Catheter
Centralized before Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California in October 2024, the AngioDynamics/Navilyst Port Catheter litigation consolidates federal claims alleging that implanted chemotherapy port catheters manufactured by AngioDynamics and its Navilyst Medical subsidiary are defectively designed or manufactured in ways that make them prone to fracture, migrate, or fail once implanted, causing infection and internal injury. With 428 actions pending, this docket shares a defect theory family with the larger Bard Implanted Port Catheter MDL proceeding separately in the District of Arizona, but it is a distinct proceeding with its own defendants, judge, and procedural history.
That distinction matters structurally: because port catheter devices from different manufacturers can share broadly similar failure modes — fracture, migration, and infection risk from implanted vascular access devices — general scientific and regulatory developments relevant to one manufacturer's devices may inform, but do not automatically transfer to, causation and liability determinations for a different manufacturer's products in a separate MDL. Each docket must independently establish its own causation record specific to the defendant's device design, manufacturing history, and regulatory record.
At roughly two years since centralization, this docket remains earlier in its pretrial development than the larger Bard proceeding, without a confirmed bellwether trial or settlement program of its own. The structural question worth tracking is whether this docket develops its own independent bellwether process on its own timeline, or whether procedural or scientific developments in the parallel, larger port catheter litigation meaningfully influence how this proceeding's case-management schedule unfolds. Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks related-but-distinct dockets like this across the full landscape of active MDLs, distinguishing genuinely separate proceedings from one another rather than treating similar defect theories as a single undifferentiated litigation.
Both involve implanted chemotherapy port catheters with a similar alleged fracture-and-migration defect theory, but they are separate proceedings against different manufacturers, before different judges, in different districts, each with its own procedural history.
Not automatically. Each docket must independently establish its own causation record specific to that manufacturer's device design, manufacturing history, and regulatory record, even where failure modes appear similar.
Roughly two years into pretrial proceedings as of the JPML's September 2026 report, without a confirmed bellwether trial or settlement program — earlier in its development than the larger, separate Bard port catheter MDL.
Whether it develops its own independent bellwether process on its own schedule, or whether developments in the parallel, larger port catheter litigation meaningfully influence its case-management timeline.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.