Evalve Inc & Ors Edwards Lifesciences Ltd

Evalve Inc & Ors Edwards Lifesciences Ltd

The public interest in allowing doctors to exercise clinical judgment is not sufficient to justify refusal or carve out from a patent injunction unless there is objective evidence that the defendant's product is the only suitable treatment for certain patients. In this case, Edwards failed to establish by objective evidence that any class of patients could only be treated with PASCAL or that PASCAL is objectively superior to MitraClip for any group. Therefore, the normal remedy of an injunction applies, with only a narrow carve out for cases where MitraClip implantation has failed.

Parties
Claimant: Evalve Inc.; Claimant: Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc.; Claimant: Abbott Medical U.K. Limited; Defendant: Edwards Lifesciences Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Injunction Application / Judgment After Public Interest Trial Following Main Patent Trial
Outcome
Injunction granted with limited carve out
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Damages in Lieu of Injunction, Public Interest Exception, Medical Devices Patents, Compulsory Licensing
Intellectual Property Patent Law Injunctions Damages in Lieu of Injunction Public Interest Exception Medical Devices Patents Compulsory Licensing

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evalve Inc.

Claimant

Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc.

Claimant

Abbott Medical U.K. Limited

Claimant

Edwards Lifesciences Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Injunction Application / Judgment After Public Interest Trial Following Main Patent Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be refused or qualified on public interest grounds after finding of patent infringement
  2. 2 Whether public interest justifies carve out from injunction for certain medical uses
  3. 3 Appropriate remedy: injunction or damages in lieu

Ratio Decidendi

The public interest in allowing doctors to exercise clinical judgment is not sufficient to justify refusal or carve out from a patent injunction unless there is objective evidence that the defendant's product is the only suitable treatment for certain patients. In this case, Edwards failed to establish by objective evidence that any class of patients could only be treated with PASCAL or that PASCAL is objectively superior to MitraClip for any group. Therefore, the normal remedy of an injunction applies, with only a narrow carve out for cases where MitraClip implantation has failed.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted with limited carve out

Orders

  • Final injunction granted restraining infringement by Edwards, with carve out only for cases where MitraClip implantation has failed and PASCAL is appropriate.
  • Continuation of interim undertakings until further order or hearing to resolve consequences of judgment.