UPC CFI 255/2023
Aug 4, 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER
Action number: ACT 551308/2023
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as amended)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Meril Italy srlOperating co.
Representatives- Emmanuel Larere-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portiersupporting-Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI
- Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarcksupporting-Regimbeau
- Jonathan Staffordsupporting-Marks & Clerk LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Anne Seibelsupporting-Regimbeau
- Gregory Carty-Hornsbysupporting-Marks & Clerk LLP
Respondents- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationOperating co.
Representatives- 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
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Nov 13, 2023
- Last decision
- Jul 19, 2024
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Catallozzi | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Wilhelm | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Meril Group (60 cases)·Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·CC 585030/2023·UPC APP 19959/2024·UPC APP 7184/2024 and 1 more
12 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024 and 7 more
- 2024-07-19Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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).
Show the legal issues (4)
- Revocation of prosthetic heart valve patent
- Validity of priority claim
- Patent amendment during proceedings
- Admissibility of late revocation grounds
- 2023-11-13Preliminary objectionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Preliminary objection
- Competence of Central Division (Art. 33(2) UPCA)
- Same parties rule
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Other document Defendant | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Final order - app 33486-2024 - 14.10.2024 | 2024-10-14 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| closing workflow | 2024-10-01 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| closing workflow | 2024-10-01 | Public |
| Receipt | 2024-09-30 | Not public |
| Application for stay | 2024-09-30 | Not public |
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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCNote: 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 EPCNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCReason: 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 EPCReason: The court found all grounds of invalidity unfounded as against the patent in its amended form (auxiliary request II).
- Levi (unspecified publication)Obviousness combination
- Fontaine (article)Obviousness combination
- WO 2013/012801Background
- EP 3 205 309Background
- EP 2 731 552Background
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.