2025-04-04 - LD Munich - Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril - UPC_CFI_501/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_501/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division found literal infringement of a divisional heart-valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2) by Meril's Myval transcatheter valve and dismissed in full Meril's counterclaim for revocation (added matter, novelty over Nguyen/Benichou/Jaramillo, inventive step, insuffi…
2025-04-04 - LD Munich - Edwards Lifesciences
v.
Meril - UPC_CFI_501/2023
notable
The Munich Local Division found literal infringement of a divisional heart-valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2) by Meril's Myval transcatheter valve and dismissed in full Meril's counterclaim for revocation (added matter, novelty over Nguyen/Benichou/Jaramillo, inventive step, insufficiency). Jurisdiction over an Italian subsidiary was confirmed under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA on a same-infringement/commercial-relationship test, and the Court held that a cease-and-desist declaration by only some members of an infringing corporate group, without a penalty clause, cannot substitute for a court injunction against the whole group. The Court granted an injunction, recall, destruction, an Art. 67 UPCA information order, a damages-liability declaration with provisional damages, and publication rights, subject only to the same XL-device patient-access carve-out already established in the parties' companion proceeding on a sibling patent (UPC_CFI_15/2023).
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attacks over Nguyen, Benichou and Jaramillo all rejected: Nguyen does not disclose features 3a/4a (the folded secondary tabs); Benichou's leaflet-to-frame attachment via cloth folded around arc portions does not anticipate the claimed crease geometry; Jaramillo lacks the claimed folding structure.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step upheld applying the EPO problem-solution approach: no motivation to modify Nguyen to arrive at the claimed tab geometry, and Lobbi in combination with Nguyen likewise fails to render the claims obvious.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“All added-matter attacks against dependent claims 7-14 rejected. Claim 7/8's outer-skirt features find literal support in [0015] of the parent application; claim 9's inner-fabric-skirt feature is supported by [064], the OD's intermediate-generalisation objection to claim 10-as-granted having been cured by adding the securing-via-sutures feature; the fabric-weave construction is not inextricably linked to the securing feature so need not be imported. Claims 1-6 undisputed as corresponding to claims 16-21 of the parent application.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Meril's argument that claim 1 omits the (allegedly essential) attachment of the folded tab regions to the frame is a clarity objection dressed as insufficiency, not a ground under Art. 138(1)(b) EPC; the skilled person implicitly understands from claim 1 that the leaflets are secured via the tabs, and can select suitable leaflet material and folding construction for dependent claim 4 using the specification and common general knowledge.”