ACT 551308/2023
—·EP3646825: A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Emmanuel Larere (Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI); Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portier (Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI); Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck (Regimbeau); Jonathan Stafford (Marks & Clerk LLP); Andreas von Falck (Hogan Lovells International LLP)BeklagteVertreter: Boris Kreye (Bird & Bird LLP); Elsa Tzschoppe (Bird & Bird LLP); Bernhard Thum (Thum & Partner); Jonas Weickert (Thum & Partner); Siddharth Kusumakar (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Tessa Waldron (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Bryce Matthewson (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP)
- Division
- Paris CD
- Richter
- Paolo Catallozzi · Presiding Judge and Judge-rapporteur
- Tatyana Zhilova · Legally Qualified Judge
- Stefan Wilhelm · Technically Qualified Judge
- Technology
- Medical Devices · Implants · Pharmaceutical & Medical
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Juli 2024
- 2024-07-19Patent geändertNichtigkeit (Hauptsache)Revocation Action
The Paris Central Division rejected the revocation actions filed by Meril Italy Srl and Meril GmbH/Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against EP 3 646 825, maintaining the patent in amended form as per auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were split 60% (claimants/counterclaimants) and 40% (defendant).
Rechtsfragen:Revocation of prosthetic heart valve patentValidity of priority claimPatent amendment during proceedingsAdmissibility of late revocation grounds
- 010422A1E32BDD20F2248FE73E2D447D_en.pdf2024-07-19EN
Meril Italy and Meril GmbH/Life Sciences sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) on inventive step grounds. The Paris Central Division rejected all invalidity attacks against the patent as limited by Edwards' auxiliary request II, which narrowed the claims to require an all-hexagonal cell frame in a specific alloy. The court identified 'Levi' as the closest prior art and found no obvious motivation to combine prior art to arrive at the claimed structure, dismissing the revocation while splitting costs 60/40 because the patent was only saved by in-proceedings amendment.
Patent maintained in amended form under auxiliary request II is valid over all asserted invalidity grounds
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: Edwards successfully defended EP 3 646 825 by limiting the patent to a frame made entirely of hexagonal cells from a specific nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, which the court found inventive over the prior art.
Fontaine's article does not teach that reduced crimping profile derives from all-hexagonal cell geometry
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCHinweis: The court found that the Fontaine reference could not be relied on to show the specific technical effect was attributable to the hexagonal geometry, defeating the obviousness attack based on that document.
Lack of inventive step based on 'Levi' as closest prior art combined with disclosure of hexagonal cells in heart valves
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: The court applied the problem-solution approach using 'Levi' as closest prior art and found that the combination did not render the amended claim obvious.
All invalidity grounds raised against amended auxiliary request II are well-founded
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: The court found all grounds of invalidity unfounded as against the patent in its amended form (auxiliary request II).
- Levi (unspecified publication)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Fontaine (article)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- WO 2013/012801Hintergrund
- EP 3 205 309Hintergrund
- EP 2 731 552Hintergrund
The court construed the amended claim as requiring a prosthetic heart valve frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells (each defined by six struts including two parallel side struts, two lower converging angled struts, and two upper converging angled struts) composed of a specific nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, mounted on a balloon delivery catheter. The amendment narrowed the original claim by specifying the alloy composition and the all-hexagonal cell requirement.