Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat) (12 June 2009)

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat) (12 June 2009)

Cook is not entitled to priority from the US application as it was not the successor in title at the relevant date; therefore, Pavcnik is prior art. The patent is not anticipated by Thorpe as pericardium is not specifically disclosed. The patent is invalid for obviousness over prior art and common general knowledge....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Edwards Lifesciences AG; Defendant: Cook Biotech Incorporated
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked; no infringement found.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Priority Entitlement, Novelty, Obviousness, Added Matter, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Priority Entitlement Novelty Obviousness Added Matter +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwards Lifesciences AG

Claimant

Cook Biotech Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is European Patent (UK) 1 255 510 valid?
  2. 2 Does Edwards' SAPIEN valve infringe Cook's patent?
  3. 3 Is Cook entitled to priority from US application?

Ratio Decidendi

Cook is not entitled to priority from the US application as it was not the successor in title at the relevant date; therefore, Pavcnik is prior art. The patent is not anticipated by Thorpe as pericardium is not specifically disclosed. The patent is invalid for obviousness over prior art and common general knowledge. Edwards' SAPIEN valve does not infringe valid claims. Claims 3 and 8 are not independently valid. Patent revoked.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked; no infringement found.

Orders

  • European Patent (UK) 1 255 510 revoked.
  • Counterclaim for infringement dismissed.