2025-10-21 - CD Paris - Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_189/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_189/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH, Meril Italy srl v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Kernaussage: The Paris Central Division revoked the patent as granted for added matter, held Auxiliary Request 1 anticipated, and maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, which it then found infringed by the counterclaim defendants' transcatheter heart valve systems.
2025-10-21 - CD Paris - Meril
v.
Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_189/2024
landmark
The Paris Central Division revoked the patent as granted for added matter, held Auxiliary Request 1 anticipated, and maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, which it then found infringed by the counterclaim defendants' transcatheter heart valve systems. Three headnotes set out the inventive-step method: the objective problem is identified from the specification, the state of the art is represented by one or more realistic starting points whose identification is left to the parties because the Court cannot acquire prior art of its own motion, and a realistic starting point is a document 'of interest' which discloses the main relevant features or addresses the same or a similar problem. A holistic approach, considering the invention as a whole rather than isolated distinguishing features, is in general the more appropriate way to assess non-obviousness. Two further headnotes govern the injunction: it is the normal remedy but the Court has a discretion and must refuse it, or tailor it, where it would be disproportionate or unreasonably detrimental to third parties, and merely removing one product from the range available to physicians does not of itself engage a public interest. On that basis the division carved XL-size valves out of the injunction, and — departing from the Munich Local Division on the same facts — refused to subject their use to the patentee's Medical Request Portal.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The novelty ground succeeded against Auxiliary Request 1, which is anticipated both by the Sadra Medical Lotus valve as evidenced by Feldman 2007 and Buellesfeld 2008 and, independently, by Braido, whose pleats imply excess material and therefore axial slack [127]-[138]. It failed against Auxiliary Request 2, where neither Letac nor Toomes unambiguously discloses slack [145], [147]-[148].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Every inventive-step attack on Auxiliary Request 2 failed. Starting from Hariton, slack in the outer skirt is an alternative and antithetical solution to the same problem, so the skilled person had no reason to look at Lotus or Braido [162]-[166]. Letac and Seguin are not realistic starting points [167]-[168]. Starting from Lotus or Braido, importing Hariton's inner skirt would require structural modifications a skilled person would view with caution in a device whose performance is highly sensitive to structure [169]-[175].”
Added Matter
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The added-matter ground succeeded against the patent as granted: claim 4 omits the limitation of the valve to a 'heart' valve, which is an unallowable intermediate generalization over para. [084] of WO '035, so the patent could not be maintained as granted [89]-[95]. The parallel attacks on claims 7, 8 and 12 failed [102], [108]-[113], and the further line on claim 7 raised only in the Reply was excluded as late filed [25]-[30].”