CC_584916/2023

A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Verletzungs-Hauptverfahren:UPC_CFI_15/2023

NichtigkeitWiderklage auf NichtigkeitParis CDCounter claim for revocationCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

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 UPCA
Hinweis: 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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step / novelty over prior art including Fontaine article
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Begründung: 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) EPC
Begründung: The panel found all grounds of invalidity against the amended Auxiliary Request II unfounded; unaddressed arguments deemed absorbed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Problem-solution approach is not mandatory under EPC/UPCA but may be applied as a cross-check Amended claims must be assessed independently for inventive step against closest prior art Where revocation fails only because patentee filed limitation during proceedings, costs may be apportioned (here 60/40)

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik

Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.

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

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.