UPC CFI 255/2023
4. Aug. 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 551308/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent geändert aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Meril Italy srlUnternehmen
Vertreter- Emmanuel Larere-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portiermitwirkend-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarckmitwirkend-Regimbeau
- Jonathan Staffordmitwirkend-Marks & Clerk LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International 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
- 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
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 13. Nov. 2023
- Letzte 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 6 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·CC 585030/2023·UPC APP 19959/2024·UPC APP 7184/2024 und 1 weitere
12 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024 und 7 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-07-19Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (4)
- Revocation of prosthetic heart valve patent
- Validity of priority claim
- Patent amendment during proceedings
- Admissibility of late revocation grounds
- 2023-11-13Preliminary objectionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Paris Central Division issued an order on a preliminary objection filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation challenging the competence of the Central Division to hear a revocation action by Meril Italy srl concerning EP 3 646 825, raising issues of same parties and Article 33(2) UPCA.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Preliminary objection
- Competence of Central Division (Art. 33(2) UPCA)
- Same parties rule
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Defendant | 2026-01-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final order - app 33486-2024 - 14.10.2024 | 2024-10-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| closing workflow | 2024-10-01 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| closing workflow | 2024-10-01 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-09-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application for stay | 2024-09-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.