Edwards Wins in Landmark Patent Decision at Paris UPC

Published

Jul 23 2024

Written By

I am a counsel in our Munich office and advise on intellectual property matters relating to patents and utility models, in particular in the context of infringement actions before national courts and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Sectors

Life Sciences and Healthcare

Background

The patent concerns a prosthetic heart valve and is at the centre of a long-standing dispute between Edwards and Meril. In total, three entities of the Meril Group brought several validity attacks: a central revocation action initiated by Meril Italy before the Paris Central Division and two counterclaims initiated by Meril Life Sciences Ltd. and Meril GmbH before the Munich Local Division in the infringement proceedings brought by Edwards. The Munich Local Division referred the counterclaims for revocation to the Paris Central Division pursuant to Article 33 (3) (b) UPCA and R. 37 (2) RoP. There, the proceedings were heard in a single oral hearing on June 7, 2024, where a full discussion on novelty and inventive step, amongst other, took place.

The decision

In its decision, the Court largely followed Edwards’ arguments and held that the patent in the amended form was novel and inventive. The Court described its test for determining inventive step, which differs from the EPO’s “Problem-Solution Approach”, but also stated that applying the EPO’s test would not have led to a different…