United Kingdom: Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, Patents Court,  EWHC 405 (Pat), 03 March 2017
Sara MoranIn a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, which can be introduced via a blood vessel, rather than through open heart surgery, the Court held one patent invalid for lack of inventive step, though had it been valid it would have been infringed. The second patent was held valid and infringed. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € The post United Kingdom: Edwards Lifesciences LLC v Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, Patents Court,  EWHC 405 (Pat), 03 March 2017 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog.
Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –
- Nori Holdings: England & Wales High Court confirms ‘continuing validity of the decision in West Tankers’ under Brussels I Recast Earlier this month, the English High Court rendered an interesting decision on the (un-)availability of anti-suit injunctions in protection of arbitration agreements under the Brussels I […]
- Court rules for J&J in Boston Scientific patent dispute (Reuters via Yahoo! News) A U.S. federal court has ruled that a stent made by Johnson and Johnson unit Cordis Corp. does not infringe a patent held by Boston Scientific Corp. , according to court […]
- Patent case: SSH Communications v Sony Mobile Communications & ors, United Kingdom Sara MoranThe Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the patent in suit lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art. The Court confirmed, following Halliburton v […]
- USA: C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2017-1851, 28 September 2018 Linda PanszczykThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that a reference guide qualified as a printed […]
- Copyright case: BBC v Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd, United Kingdom Stavroula KarapapaThe Court concluded that the Copyright Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under section 126 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 to set the terms of licences of […]
- J&J wins ruling in Boston Scientific patent case (Reuters via Yahoo! News) A U.S. federal court has ruled that a drug-coated stent sold by Johnson and Johnson does not infringe a patent held by Boston Scientific Corp. .
Read more detail on Legal News […]
- J&J wins patent fight against Boston Scientific (CNN Money) Jury rules that J&J stent does not violate Boston Scientific patent. NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A U.S. federal court has ruled that a drug-coated stent sold by Johnson and Johnson does not […]
- Boston Scientific loses patent case against J&J (bizjournals.com via Yahoo! Finance) Johnson & Johnson does not infringe a Boston Scientific Corp. patent for a drug-coated stent, a federal judge has ruled.
Read more detail on Legal News Directory - Intellectual Property
- Copyright Case: Sprint Electric Ltd v Buyer’s Dream Ltd, United Kingdom Stavroula KarapapaA software development company was held to own the copyright in source code authored by its sole programmer on the basis that the relationship between the parties was one […]
- Silver Law Group is Investigating Joseph Alan Lavigne of Spencer Edwards, Inc. Silver Law Group is currently investigating Centennial, Colorado based broker Joseph Alan Lavigne regarding complaints pertaining to failure to provide due diligence to investor clients […]
This entry was posted in Intellectual Property
and tagged 2017
. Bookmark the permalink