UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

CC_585030/2023

A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Verletzungs-Hauptverfahren:UPC_CFI_15/2023

NichtigkeitWiderklage auf NichtigkeitParis CDCounterclaim for revocation—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Meril Italy Srl and affiliated Meril entities brought revocation proceedings against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve system with hexagonal frame cells and delivery catheter) before the Paris Central Division. The court rejected revocation of the patent as amended by Edwards' Auxiliary Request II, which limited the frame to being made entirely of hexagonal cells in a specific alloy; this amendment was found novel and inventive over the closest prior art Levi and the Fontaine article. The patent was maintained in amended form, with costs split 60% (Meril parties) / 40% (Edwards) because the limitation was filed during proceedings.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • 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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC; validity under EPC

    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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Inventive step / obviousness

    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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

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

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC

    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

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Inventive step / problem-solution approach

    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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Problem-solution approach — court noted it is not mandatory under EPC but would not change the outcome if appliedPatent maintenance as amended — court can maintain patent in limited form pursuant to auxiliary requestClosest prior art identificationCosts apportioned where patent is maintained only because defendant (patentee) filed a limitation during proceedings

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • LeviErfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • Fontaine articleErfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • WO 2013/012801 (WO '801 / grandparent application)Hintergrund
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The key claim construction issue was the meaning of 'frame comprising a plurality of rows of hexagonal cells' in EP 3 646 825 as granted versus 'frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells' in Auxiliary Request II. The amendment in AR II added the limitation that (i) the frame is made of a nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, (ii) the frame is made up entirely of hexagonal cells, and (iii) each hexagonal cell is defined by exactly six struts with specified geometry. The court treated the 'entirely of hexagonal cells' limitation as the critical distinguishing feature that avoided the prior art.