NIPC Law

Author Basher Eyre Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikipedia Rolls Buildin g Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birrs)  Evalve Inc and others  v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) A month after their trial before Mr Justice Birss in  Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1) [ 2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020 and nearly two months before they know who had won, the parties found themselves back in the Rolls Building which I blogged in  Patents - Evalve Inc. and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (#1)   29 March 2020 for a further trial before the same judge. The issue in the second trial was whether Edwards Lifesciences Ltd. should be injuncted and, if so, on what terms should it lose the patent action.  In his judgment in  Evalve Inc and Others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd   (#2) [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) (12 March 2020) which he delivered the same day as his judgment in the...

Author OpenStax College Licence CC BY 3.0   Source Wikipedia Heart Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Evalve Inc and others v Edwards Lifesciences Ltd [2020] EWHC 514 (Pat) (12 March 2020) This was a patent infringement action. The patents alleged to have been infringed were  EP (UK) 1 408 850 entitled "Devices for capturing and fixing leaflets in valve repair" ("850") and EP (UK) 1 624 810 entitled "Fixation devices and systems for engaging tissue" ("810" )  The claimants, who were the patentee, exclusive licensee and exclusive licensee respectively, complained that the defendant company had infringed those patents.  The defendant denied infringement and contended that the patents were invalid.  The 850 on grounds of obviousness and added matter.  The 810 on the basis of anticipation and obviousness. The action came on for trial before Mr Jusiice Birss between 9 and 13 and 17 and 18 Dec 2019. His lordship gave ju...