UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 551308/2023

—·EP3646825: A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Case details
Status
—
Action
Revocation
Category
Main Revocation Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Emmanuel Larere (Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI); Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portier (Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI); Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck (Regimbeau); Jonathan Stafford (Marks & Clerk LLP); Andreas von Falck (Hogan Lovells International LLP)
Respondents
Reps: 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
Judges
Technology
Medical Devices · Implants · Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
—
First decided
Jul 19, 2024
Claims
At issueall
Amendedall
Notes: Patent EP3646825 maintained in amended form per auxiliary request II (frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells); revocation actions by both claimant and counterclaimants rejected; no specific claim numbers other than claim 1 enumerated in excerpts.
Decisions
  • 2024-07-19
    Patent amendedRevocation meritsRevocation Action

    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).

    Legal issues:Revocation of prosthetic heart valve patentValidity of priority claimPatent amendment during proceedingsAdmissibility of late revocation grounds
Documents
  • 010422A1E32BDD20F2248FE73E2D447D_en.pdf2024-07-19EN
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent maintained in amended form under auxiliary request II is valid over all asserted invalidity grounds

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Lack of inventive step based on 'Levi' as closest prior art combined with disclosure of hexagonal cells in heart valves

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: The court found all grounds of invalidity unfounded as against the patent in its amended form (auxiliary request II).

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
problem-solution approach (noted as not mandatory under EPC but applied as consistent with outcome)patent limitation during proceedings can defeat revocation actioncost-splitting where revocation dismissed only due to in-proceedings amendment

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Levi (unspecified publication)Obviousness combination
  • Fontaine (article)Obviousness combination
  • WO 2013/012801Background
  • EP 3 205 309Background
  • EP 2 731 552Background
Claim construction notes

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.