Thoratec Europe Ltd v AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions

Thoratec Europe Ltd v AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions

Claims 1 and 5 lack novelty over the prior use of the Reitan Catheter Pump, which was not confidential. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are obvious over Dekker, Sieß, Johnson & Johnson, and McBride. Claims 21 and 22 are obvious over McBride. The HeartMate PHP would infringe claims 1, 5, 8, 21, and 22 if valid. Proposed amendments to 658 would not save validity. Claims are sufficient under AIS's construction.

Parties
Claimant: Thoratec Europe Limited; Defendant: AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Declaration of Non Infringement / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims 1 and 5 invalid for lack of novelty; claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 21, and 22 invalid for obviousness; declaration of non-infringement granted.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Infringement, Prior Art, Amendment, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Infringement Prior Art Amendment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thoratec Europe Limited

Claimant

AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Declaration of Non Infringement / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 21, and 22 of European Patents (UK) Nos. 2 047 872 and 2 234 658 lack novelty or are obvious over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the prior use of the Reitan Catheter Pump was confidential
  3. 3 Whether the HeartMate PHP product infringes the patents if valid

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 5 lack novelty over the prior use of the Reitan Catheter Pump, which was not confidential. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are obvious over Dekker, Sieß, Johnson & Johnson, and McBride. Claims 21 and 22 are obvious over McBride. The HeartMate PHP would infringe claims 1, 5, 8, 21, and 22 if valid. Proposed amendments to 658 would not save validity. Claims are sufficient under AIS's construction.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 5 invalid for lack of novelty; claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 21, and 22 invalid for obviousness; declaration of non-infringement granted.

Orders

  • Declaration of non-infringement in respect of HeartMate PHP granted.
  • Claims 1 and 5 of 872 and 658 revoked for lack of novelty.