AngioDynamics, Inc., and Navilyst Medical, Inc., Port Catheter

The AngioDynamics/Navilyst Port Catheter litigation, centralized before Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California in October 2024, consolidates claims that implanted chemotherapy port catheters manufactured by AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical are prone to fracture, migrate, or fail once implanted, causing infection and internal injury in cancer patients using the devices for treatment access. With 428 actions pending, this is a distinct, smaller docket from the larger Bard-manufacturer port catheter litigation proceeding separately in Arizona — a different defendant, a different presiding judge, and its own procedural timeline, even though the alleged defect mechanism and claimant profile are similar in kind.

Because this docket is roughly a year into pretrial proceedings and has not yet produced a bellwether verdict or established settlement program, funding decisions today are priced primarily against individual claim documentation — device model, implantation and failure timeline, and the nature of any resulting infection or injury — rather than against docket-wide outcome data. Firms and funders should not assume that outcome trends from the separate, larger Bard port catheter MDL apply directly here, since the defendants, evidence, and case-management history differ even where the underlying defect theory is analogous.

As in other implanted port catheter litigation, medical-lien exposure is often significant given the oncology treatment context — infection management, device removal or replacement surgery, and any resulting complications to cancer treatment continuity all generate lien claims that should be sized carefully. For a firm building a portfolio specific to AngioDynamics and Navilyst devices, underwriting should be structured for a longer duration horizon consistent with the docket's earlier procedural stage. Criterica Capital's mass tort finance product applies to claims in this docket, and a structural brief distinguishing it from the related Bard litigation is available through Criterica Intelligence.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.