CC 585030/2023

Patent EP 3 646 825 is valid as amended by Auxiliary Request II, which limits the frame to being made up entirely of hexagonal cells

Hinweis: Court found that the grounds of invalidity raised against the patent as amended by AR II were unfounded; the Levi prior art did not disclose or render obvious a frame made entirely of hexagonal cells.

Fontaine's article does not teach that the reduced crimping profile derives from the use of a frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells

Hinweis: Court accepted that the specific technical effect (reduced crimping profile) from using all-hexagonal cell geometry was not taught by Fontaine's article, supporting non-obviousness.

Revocation of EP 3 646 825 as granted (main request) on grounds of lack of novelty and/or inventive step

Begründung: The patent as granted was found invalid (not stated explicitly — Edwards ultimately amended the patent), but the revocation of the patent in the amended form (AR II) was rejected because the all-hexagonal-cell frame limitation was novel and inventive over Levi and Fontaine.

Lack of inventive step of AR II claims over Levi (closest prior art) in combination with teachings about hexagonal cells in heart valves

Begründung: Court identified Levi as the closest prior art but found that the skilled person would not be motivated to combine teachings about hexagonal cell geometry to arrive at a frame made entirely of hexagonal cells; the same Fontaine analysis applied.