Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. & Ors

Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. & Ors

The 254 Patent lacks inventive step over Thornton and is invalid; the 766 Patent is valid and infringed by Edwards' Sapien 3 device. The Sapien 3 device falls within the scope of claim 1 of the 766 Patent, as it creates a sac between the inner and outer skirt, providing a seal. The 254 Patent would have been infringed if valid. None of the patents lack novelty over the cited prior art. Claims of added matter and insufficiency fail.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
254 Patent invalid for lack of inventive step; 766 Patent valid and infringed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Novelty, Inventive Step, Added Matter, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Novelty Inventive Step Added Matter Insufficiency

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 5 Authorities cited 16 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Boston's patents EP (UK) 2 749 254 and EP (UK) 2 926 766 are valid
  2. 2 Whether Edwards' Sapien 3 device infringes Boston's patents
  3. 3 Whether the patents lack novelty or inventive step over prior art

Ratio Decidendi

The 254 Patent lacks inventive step over Thornton and is invalid; the 766 Patent is valid and infringed by Edwards' Sapien 3 device. The Sapien 3 device falls within the scope of claim 1 of the 766 Patent, as it creates a sac between the inner and outer skirt, providing a seal. The 254 Patent would have been infringed if valid. None of the patents lack novelty over the cited prior art. Claims of added matter and insufficiency fail.

Court Disposition

254 Patent invalid for lack of inventive step; 766 Patent valid and infringed.

Orders

  • 254 Patent revoked for lack of inventive step.
  • Declaration of infringement of 766 Patent by Edwards' Sapien 3 device.