As of mid-2026, 401 pending lawsuits are filed in one of the most closely watched medical device litigations in the country. In MDL 3125 — formally titled AngioDynamics, Inc. and Navilyst Medical, Inc. Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation — the bellwether selection process is actively reshaping how the entire litigation proceeds. For the hundreds of cancer patients already in the MDL, and potentially thousands more who were implanted with AngioDynamics SmartPort, Vortex Port, or Xcela devices and have no idea an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit even exists, the next several months are critical.
What Is MDL 3125 and Why Does It Matter Right Now
MDL 3125 was created in October 2024 in the Southern District of California before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta. At the time of its creation, the MDL consolidated 56 individual actions. As of July 2026, that number has climbed to 401 pending cases — a staggering increase since the MDL’s formation, according to MDL Update tracking data. Ten more cases were added since June 2026 alone, signaling that awareness of the litigation is accelerating rapidly among cancer patients and their families.
The bellwether selection process represents the single most consequential development since the MDL was formed. Judge Ohta originally set June 5, 2026 as the bellwether selection deadline, but AngioDynamics requested a 60-day extension. The court granted that extension, pushing the deadline to August 4, 2026, though that deadline has since been extended further. Under the court’s scheduling order, each side must nominate exactly nine cases, with a specific injury breakdown: four infection-only cases, two thrombosis cases, two catheter fracture cases, and one case involving any qualifying injury other than wrongful death.
Plaintiff fact sheets for the selected bellwether cases were due on July 15, 2026. Defendant fact sheets follow on September 1, 2026. By December 2026, the 18-case pool will be narrowed to eight cases. The first AngioDynamics bellwether trial is not expected until around 2028. No settlements have been announced in MDL 3125 as of mid-2026. If you have been implanted with one of these devices and suffered a serious complication, understanding this timeline — and where you fit in — is urgent. Use a medical malpractice calculator to begin evaluating the potential value of a defective medical device claim while the litigation is still actively accepting new filings.
The Devices at the Center of the AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuit
The AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit targets three specific implanted port catheter products manufactured by AngioDynamics, Inc. and its subsidiary Navilyst Medical, Inc.:
- SmartPort CT Titanium Port — a titanium-bodied implantable port designed for high-pressure contrast CT injections, used widely in cancer chemotherapy delivery
- Vortex Port — a rounded reservoir port device also used for long-term intravenous access in chemotherapy patients
- Xcela Plus Port — marketed as a power-injectable port for chemotherapy and contrast imaging, featuring a distinctive design intended to reduce clotting and improve flow rates
These devices are surgically implanted beneath the skin — typically in the chest — and connected to a catheter that feeds directly into a large vein near the heart. They are intended to remain in place for months or years, providing repeated access for chemotherapy infusions, blood draws, and contrast dye injections during CT scans. Patients who receive these ports are almost universally cancer patients who would otherwise require repeated needle sticks into peripheral veins, making the port a quality-of-life essential for many undergoing long-term treatment.
The core allegation in MDL 3125 is that these devices were defectively designed and manufactured — and that AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about known risks that made these ports significantly more dangerous than alternatives on the market. The polyurethane catheter component, in particular, has been identified as prone to fracture and degradation over time, with fragments capable of migrating through the bloodstream and lodging in the heart or lungs.
Alleged Device Defects and Injury Types in MDL 3125
The bellwether case selection framework itself reveals the three primary injury categories driving MDL 3125:
Catheter Fracture and Migration
The most structurally alarming defect alleged in MDL 3125 is catheter fracture — the breaking apart of the catheter tubing that connects the port reservoir to the patient’s central vein. Plaintiffs allege that the polyurethane material used in AngioDynamics catheters degrades over time, becoming brittle and prone to fracture under the repeated mechanical stresses of infusion therapy. When fracture occurs, catheter fragments can embolize — traveling through the bloodstream into the heart, pulmonary arteries, or other vessels. This is a life-threatening emergency requiring surgical or interventional retrieval. Plaintiffs allege that AngioDynamics knew about the fracture risk and failed to adequately redesign the catheter or warn clinicians about monitoring requirements.
Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections and Sepsis
The largest single category in the bellwether pool — four of the nine plaintiff nominations must be infection-only cases — involves catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). These infections occur when bacteria colonize the catheter or port reservoir and enter the bloodstream directly, bypassing the body’s normal defenses. In immunocompromised cancer patients, CRBSIs can rapidly progress to sepsis and septic shock. Plaintiffs allege that design features of the AngioDynamics ports — including the reservoir geometry and septum design — created conditions that facilitated bacterial biofilm formation and made the devices more infection-prone than competing products. For patients who developed sepsis, the consequences included extended ICU hospitalizations, organ damage, and in some cases death.
Thrombosis
Two of the nine plaintiff bellwether nominations must involve thrombosis cases — blood clots forming within or around the port catheter. Port-related thrombosis can take several forms: fibrin sheath formation around the catheter tip that impairs function, deep vein thrombosis in the subclavian or jugular veins adjacent to the catheter, or, most dangerously, pulmonary embolism if a clot breaks free and travels to the lungs. Plaintiffs allege that the AngioDynamics catheter design promoted clot formation at higher rates than comparable devices, and that the company’s warnings to physicians understated this risk in ways that prevented appropriate monitoring and prophylactic anticoagulation.
MDL 3125 vs. Bard PowerPort MDL 3081: A Critical Comparison
The most instructive parallel litigation for understanding where MDL 3125 is headed is the Bard PowerPort MDL 3081, consolidated in the District of Arizona. The Bard litigation involves nearly identical allegations — that Bard’s polyurethane port catheters are prone to fracture, infection, and thrombosis, and that Bard failed to adequately warn patients and physicians. The structural similarities between the two MDLs make Bard’s trajectory a valuable predictor for AngioDynamics plaintiffs.
Critically, the Bard PowerPort MDL reached a significant procedural milestone in May 2026, when the first bellwether trial concluded with a mixed result — the jury deadlocked on the design-defect claim. That outcome is closely watched by attorneys on both sides of MDL 3125. A hung jury on a core design-defect theory does not end the litigation, but it does signal that these cases are genuinely contested and that neither side can count on a quick resolution. For AngioDynamics plaintiffs, the Bard result underscores why bellwether trial outcomes matter so much: they reveal which claims resonate with juries and which arguments defendants can successfully challenge.
MDL 3125 is running approximately 18 to 24 months behind the Bard MDL in procedural terms. The Bard MDL had significantly more cases filed at the equivalent stage of its development, suggesting that AngioDynamics plaintiff numbers — already growing steadily with 401 cases as of July 2026 — may continue to climb as more cancer patients learn about the litigation. Both MDLs share the same fundamental device defect theory, the same patient population (immunocompromised cancer patients), and the same failure-to-warn framework. Attorneys who have followed both litigations note that early Bard settlements — if and when they occur post-trial — will likely influence AngioDynamics settlement negotiations as well, though no settlement discussions have been publicly reported in MDL 3125 as of mid-2026.
Who Qualifies to File an AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuit
Eligibility for the AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit is defined by two primary factors: the specific device implanted and the injury suffered. Attorneys currently evaluating cases are looking for individuals who meet all of the following criteria:
Device requirement: The plaintiff must have been implanted with an AngioDynamics SmartPort, Vortex Port, or Xcela Plus Port — or a comparable Navilyst Medical port catheter product. Device identification typically requires reviewing implant records, surgical operative notes, or the implant card that patients should have received at the time of the procedure. Many patients do not retain these records, but they can often be obtained from the implanting hospital or oncology center.
Injury requirement: The plaintiff must have suffered one or more of the following qualifying injuries:
- Catheter fracture or fragmentation, with or without embolization
- Catheter fragment migration to the heart, lungs, or other vessels
- Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) or sepsis
- Deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism related to the port
- Port failure requiring surgical removal or revision
- Death caused by any of the above complications
Causation: The injury must be plausibly linked to the AngioDynamics device — not to the underlying cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy toxicity, or an unrelated medical event. This is an area where medical record review by an attorney is essential, as causation in port catheter cases can be medically complex.
Patients who received their AngioDynamics port as part of cancer treatment — particularly breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or lymphoma — are the most common filers in MDL 3125. However, ports are also used in non-cancer patients receiving long-term IV therapy, and those patients may qualify as well depending on their injury.
Family members filing on behalf of a deceased loved one whose death was caused by a port-related complication may bring a wrongful death claim. These cases are specifically excluded from the bellwether pool under the current scheduling order — meaning they will not be among the first cases tried — but they remain eligible for inclusion in MDL 3125 and for any eventual global settlement.
What to Expect: Settlement Timeline and Next Steps
Understanding the realistic timeline for MDL 3125 requires accepting a difficult truth: mass tort medical device litigation moves slowly, and the AngioDynamics cases are no exception. As of mid-2026, no settlements have been announced, and the first bellwether trial is not expected until around 2028. Here is what the coming months and years are likely to look like for plaintiffs in or considering joining MDL 3125.
Mid-2026 through end of 2026: The bellwether selection process continues. Plaintiff fact sheets were due July 15, 2026. Defense fact sheets are due September 1, 2026. By December 2026, the pool of nominated cases will be narrowed from 18 to eight. During this period, expert discovery and Daubert challenges — disputes over the admissibility of expert testimony — will be central battlegrounds. The outcome of Daubert hearings can dramatically reshape which claims survive to trial.
2027: Bellwether trial preparation will intensify. Both sides will be completing expert depositions, filing summary judgment motions, and preparing trial-specific strategies. If the Bard MDL experience is predictive, pretrial motions in AngioDynamics could significantly narrow the issues for trial. Settlement discussions are possible but historically do not begin in earnest in medical device MDLs until after at least one bellwether trial has produced a verdict.
2028 and beyond: The first AngioDynamics bellwether trial is currently anticipated around 2028. If that trial produces a significant plaintiff verdict, it could catalyze settlement negotiations across the entire MDL. If the defense prevails, AngioDynamics may push harder to try additional cases rather than settle. The Bard MDL’s mixed May 2026 result — a jury deadlock on the design-defect claim — illustrates that these outcomes are genuinely uncertain and that global resolution may require multiple trial cycles.
For individual plaintiffs, the practical implications are clear: this litigation will likely take several more years to resolve through either trial verdicts or a negotiated settlement. Filing sooner rather than later is strategically important because early filers have more time to complete fact sheet requirements, preserve evidence, and potentially be considered for the bellwether pool. Statutes of limitations — which vary by state but typically run two to three years from the date of injury or discovery of injury — are a hard legal deadline that cannot be extended by the MDL’s slower pace.
Frequently Asked Questions About the AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuit
What AngioDynamics port devices are included in the MDL 3125 lawsuit?
MDL 3125 covers implantable port catheter products manufactured by AngioDynamics, Inc. and Navilyst Medical, Inc. The primary devices at issue are the SmartPort CT Titanium Port, the Vortex Port, and the Xcela Plus Port. If you are unsure which device you received, your implant records, surgical notes, or the implant card provided at the time of your procedure will identify the manufacturer and model. Hospitals and oncology centers are required to retain implant records and can provide copies upon request.
What injuries qualify for the AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit?
The qualifying injuries in MDL 3125 include catheter fracture or fragmentation, catheter fragment embolization or migration, catheter-related bloodstream infection or sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, port failure requiring surgical revision or removal, and wrongful death caused by any of the above. Complications that are attributable to the underlying disease or unrelated medical causes — rather than the port device itself — are generally not qualifying injuries. An attorney reviewing your medical records can assess whether your specific complication meets the causation standard required for a viable claim.
How does the AngioDynamics MDL compare to the Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
The Bard PowerPort MDL 3081 and the AngioDynamics MDL 3125 are structurally very similar litigations — both involve implantable port catheters alleged to be defectively designed with polyurethane components prone to fracture, infection, and thrombosis. The Bard MDL is procedurally ahead, with its first bellwether trial concluding in May 2026 in a mixed result, with the jury deadlocking on the design-defect claim. That outcome is being closely watched by attorneys in the AngioDynamics litigation as a signal of how similar claims may play out at trial. The AngioDynamics MDL is expected to follow a similar procedural path, with bellwether trials anticipated around 2028.
How long do I have to file an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit?
The statute of limitations for a defective medical device claim varies by state, but most states impose a deadline of two to three years from the date of injury or — under the “discovery rule” — from the date you knew or reasonably should have known that the device caused your injury. The existence of the MDL does not pause or extend your state’s statute of limitations. If your deadline expires before you file, your claim will be barred regardless of how strong the underlying facts are. Because statutes of limitations in these cases can be complex — particularly when the implant occurred years before the injury became apparent — consulting with an attorney as soon as possible is essential.
When can AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit plaintiffs expect compensation?
As of mid-2026, no settlements have been announced in MDL 3125, and the first bellwether trial is not expected until around 2028. Realistically, most plaintiffs should not expect compensation before 2028 at the earliest, and a global settlement — if one occurs — could come later still, depending on how bellwether trial outcomes unfold. This timeline is consistent with other major medical device MDLs, including the Bard PowerPort litigation, which has followed a similarly extended trajectory. The most important step any potential plaintiff can take right now is to consult with a mass tort attorney, preserve all relevant medical records, and file before the applicable statute of limitations expires.
Victoria Chambers is a mass tort and class action research analyst with extensive knowledge of multi-district litigation (MDL), defective product cases, dangerous drug lawsuits, and toxic exposure claims across the United States. Victoria is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.