UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

CC 584916/2023

Nov 2, 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 19, 2024
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Stefan WilhelmLockedLocked

At the UPC: Meril Group (60 cases)·Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 20 other proceedings

UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024·UPC APP 60159/2024 and 15 more

5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CFI 674/2024·UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·UPC CFI 255/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-07-19
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Central Division (Paris) maintained Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) in amended form (Auxiliary Request II) following revocation actions and counterclaims by Meril entities. All invalidity grounds against the amended claims were rejected.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Revocation
    • Patent amended (auxiliary request)
    • Inventive step
    • Prosthetic heart valve
    • Counterclaim for revocation
Documents
Show all 536 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-01-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-05Not public
Other document Defendant2026-01-05Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-20Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-20Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-11Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request II (all-hexagonal-cell frame in nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy with delivery catheter)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC (by analogy)

    Note: 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.

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

  • Claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step / novelty over prior art including Fontaine article

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC

    Reason: The panel found all grounds of invalidity against the amended Auxiliary Request II unfounded; unaddressed arguments deemed absorbed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Problem-solution approach is not mandatory under EPC/UPCA but may be applied as a cross-checkAmended claims must be assessed independently for inventive step against closest prior artWhere revocation fails only because patentee filed limitation during proceedings, costs may be apportioned (here 60/40)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Levi (prior art document identified as closest prior art)Obviousness combination
  • Fontaine article (prior art relied on for reduced crimping profile argument)Obviousness combination
  • WO 2013/012801 (parent/grandparent application lineage)Background
Claim construction notes

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.