2024-07-19 - CD Paris - Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_255/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Meril Italy srl v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Kernaussage: The Paris Central Division rejected a revocation action and two counterclaims for revocation of Edwards' prosthetic heart valve patent EP 3 646 825, maintaining it as amended per Auxiliary Request II.
2024-07-19 - CD Paris - Meril
v.
Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
landmark
The Paris Central Division rejected a revocation action and two counterclaims for revocation of Edwards' prosthetic heart valve patent EP 3 646 825, maintaining it as amended per Auxiliary Request II. On parallel-proceedings management, the CD held that an LD's ability under Art. 33(3) UPCA and a CD's ability under Rule 302 RoP are case-by-case; Rule 340 RoP cannot derogate Art. 33(4) UPCA competence of the CD, and the Munich LD's reading requiring a joint panel lacks a basis in the UPCA/RoP. On procedure, an unsubstantiated but timely application to amend is not inadmissible; a subsequent request under Rule 30(2) is therefore permitted. On substance, claim 1 as granted/main request fails for impermissible intermediate generalization — isolating 'frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells' from WO '801 without the full definition of 'homogeneous pattern' extends beyond the earlier application (Art. 76(1), 123(2) EPC). Priority entitlement is presumed under G-1/22 absent evidence to rebut it, but priority P1 is not validly claimed for AR II because features are not directly and unambiguously derivable from P1. AR II is novel over Levi, Benichou, Dimatteo, Hariton and Colibri, and inventive over Levi and the combined teaching of heart-valve prior art with the Fontaine stent — the prior art does not motivate the skilled person to adopt an all-hexagonal frame for reducing crimping profile.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“AR II is novel: Levi does not disclose a frame made entirely of hexagonal cells (intermediate rows are diamond/rhombic) [101-104]; Benichou lacks side struts and is only a frame portion [109-110]; Dimatteo (Figs. 18-21) discloses a venous, not heart, valve and lacks the nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy [113-115]; Hariton does not disclose hexagonal cells [117-118].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“AR II inventive: claimant's burden to prove lack of technical effect not met [124-125]; prior heart-valve art used hexagonal cells only in combination with rhombic cells (Levi deliberately retains rhombic for tapering) [132-138]; Fontaine stent's reduced crimping profile derives from 'proprietary design', not from honeycomb pattern alone [144-152]; problem-solution approach yields the same result [153-155].”
Added Matter
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Main request impermissibly isolates feature 1.5 ('frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells') from WO '801 para. [054], omitting the full definition of 'homogeneous pattern' — intermediate generalization [66]. AR II cures the deficiency by reproducing para. [054] wording [82].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Not decidedArt. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Lack of enabling disclosure raised but not addressed because added-matter ground suffices for main request and AR II's novelty/inventive-step analysis resolves remaining issues [71].”
Clarity
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 84 EPC · derivative
“Nickel-cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy sufficiently clear as a plastically-expandable material [76]; skilled person understands which axial struts do not form part of the hexagonal cells [78].”
Priority
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 87 EPC · derivative
“Rebuttable presumption of entitlement to priority applied following G-1/22 and G-2/22 [86-91]; claimant's entitlement challenge fails. Priority of P1 (15 July 2011) is NOT validly claimed for AR II because features 1.5-1.9 are not directly and unambiguously derivable from P1 [92-98]; relevant date becomes 13 July 2012.”