CC 584916/2023
2. Nov. 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent geändert aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartWiderklage auf NichtigkeitKategorieWiderklage auf Nichtigkeit
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Unternehmen
- Meril GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Andreas Johannes Nikolaus von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Emmanuel Larere-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portier-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarckmitwirkend-Regimbeau
- Jonathan Staffordmitwirkend-Marks & Clerk LLP
- Anne Seibelmitwirkend-Regimbeau
- Gregory Carty-Hornsbymitwirkend-Marks & Clerk LLP
Beklagte- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
- Elsa Tzschoppe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Bernhard Thum-Thum & Partner
- Siddharth Kusumakar-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Jonas Weickert-Thum & Partner
- Tessa Waldron-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Bryce Matthewson-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Juli 2024
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Paolo Catallozzi | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tatyana Zhilova | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Wilhelm | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Meril Group (60 Verfahren)·Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 20 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024·UPC APP 60159/2024 und 15 weitere
5 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CFI 674/2024·UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·UPC CFI 255/2023
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-07-19Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Central Division (Paris) maintained Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) in amended form (Auxiliary Request II) following revocation actions and counterclaims by Meril entities. All invalidity grounds against the amended claims were rejected.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Revocation
- Patent amended (auxiliary request)
- Inventive step
- Prosthetic heart valve
- Counterclaim for revocation
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Defendant | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-02-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
Meril entities sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825, a prosthetic heart valve with a hexagonal-cell frame and delivery catheter system. The Central Division (Paris) upheld the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request II), finding that all invalidity grounds — including lack of inventive step over Levi as closest prior art and Fontaine's article — were unfounded against the restricted claims requiring an all-hexagonal nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum frame. Costs were allocated 60% to the Meril parties and 40% to Edwards.
Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request II (all-hexagonal-cell frame in nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy with delivery catheter)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 65 UPCAHinweis: The amended claims removed the original broad framing and restricted the frame material and cell geometry sufficiently to overcome all invalidity attacks; Levi was identified as closest prior art but the combination to arrive at the amended claim was not obvious.
Problem-solution approach, even if not mandatory, does not change the inventive-step outcome when applied to Auxiliary Request II
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC (by analogy)Hinweis: The panel applied the problem-solution approach as a cross-check and reached the same conclusion: no lack of inventive step over Levi as closest prior art.
Claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step / novelty over prior art including Fontaine article
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: The panel found that Fontaine's article does not teach that the reduced crimping profile derives specifically from a frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells, so the distinction over prior art was maintained for the amended claim.
All invalidity grounds (lack of inventive step, added matter, insufficiency) against Auxiliary Request II
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1) EPCBegründung: The panel found all grounds of invalidity against the amended Auxiliary Request II unfounded; unaddressed arguments deemed absorbed.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- Levi (prior art document identified as closest prior art)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Fontaine article (prior art relied on for reduced crimping profile argument)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- WO 2013/012801 (parent/grandparent application lineage)Hintergrund
The amended Claim 1 (Auxiliary Request II) requires the frame to be made up entirely of hexagonal cells, each defined by six struts including two opposing side struts parallel to the flow axis, lower and upper angled struts converging toward each other, and the frame material to be a nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy. The panel interpreted 'made up entirely of hexagonal cells' strictly, excluding any non-hexagonal struts except those at inflow/outflow ends for mounting.