Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. & Ors [2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017)

Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. & Ors [2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017)

The court found that both patents were invalid for lack of inventive step over the cited prior art. The claims as construed did not involve an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge and the prior art. Even if valid, the Sapien 3 product would have infringed the claims as construed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 405 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Edwards Lifesciences LLC; Defendant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.; Third Party: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation; Fourth Party: Edwards Lifesciences AG (also known as Edwards Lifesciences SA); Seventh Party: Edwards Lifesciences Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patents revoked for lack of inventive step; counterclaim for infringement dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Novelty, Inventive Step, Added Matter, Sufficiency of Disclosure, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Novelty Inventive Step Added Matter Sufficiency of Disclosure +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwards Lifesciences LLC

Claimant

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Defendant

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Third Party

Edwards Lifesciences AG (also known as Edwards Lifesciences SA)

Fourth Party

Edwards Lifesciences Limited

Seventh Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Boston's EP (UK) 2 749 254 and EP (UK) 2 926 766 patents are invalid for lack of novelty, inventive step, added matter, or insufficiency; whether Edwards' Sapien 3 valve infringes the patents if valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both patents were invalid for lack of inventive step over the cited prior art. The claims as construed did not involve an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge and the prior art. Even if valid, the Sapien 3 product would have infringed the claims as construed.

Court Disposition

Patents revoked for lack of inventive step; counterclaim for infringement dismissed.

Orders

  • EP (UK) 2 749 254 and EP (UK) 2 926 766 revoked.
  • Counterclaim for infringement dismissed.