Edwards Lifesciences LLC & Ors v Boston Scientific Scimed Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 673 (28 March 2018)

Edwards Lifesciences LLC & Ors v Boston Scientific Scimed Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 673 (28 March 2018)

The Court held that the 254 patent was obvious over Thornton because the skilled team would have found it obvious to try using the Thornton flange as a seal on a THV, with a reasonable expectation of reducing paravalvular leakage. The 766 patent was not obvious over Thornton because the requirement for a 'sac' in claim 1 connoted a bag-like cavity with a substantial degree of enclosure, which was not disclosed or suggested by Thornton. The judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr Buller over Boston's experts, and the lack of cross-examination of Prof Lutter did not render the judgment unsafe or procedurally unfair.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 673
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Edwards Lifesciences LLC; Appellant/respondent: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation; Appellant/respondent: Edwards Lifesciences AG (also known as Edwards Lifesciences SA); Appellant/respondent: Edwards Lifesciences Limited; Respondent/appellant: Boston Scientific Scimed Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Cross Appeals From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed. Judgment of the High Court (Patents Court) upheld.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Infringement, Interpretation of Patent Claims, Procedural Fairness in Cross Examination
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Infringement Interpretation of Patent Claims Procedural Fairness in Cross Examination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwards Lifesciences LLC

Appellant/respondent

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Appellant/respondent

Edwards Lifesciences AG (also known as Edwards Lifesciences SA)

Appellant/respondent

Edwards Lifesciences Limited

Appellant/respondent

Boston Scientific Scimed Inc

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Cross Appeals From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 2 749 254 is invalid for obviousness over Thornton prior art
  2. 2 Whether European Patent (UK) No 2 926 766 is invalid for obviousness over Thornton prior art
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'sac' in claim 1 of 766 patent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the 254 patent was obvious over Thornton because the skilled team would have found it obvious to try using the Thornton flange as a seal on a THV, with a reasonable expectation of reducing paravalvular leakage. The 766 patent was not obvious over Thornton because the requirement for a 'sac' in claim 1 connoted a bag-like cavity with a substantial degree of enclosure, which was not disclosed or suggested by Thornton. The judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr Buller over Boston's experts, and the lack of cross-examination of Prof Lutter did not render the judgment unsafe or procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed. Judgment of the High Court (Patents Court) upheld.