"Aortic sued Edwards Lifesciences asserting four patents claiming transcatheter valve devices and methods for repairing diseased aortic valves: U.S. Patent No. 10881538; U.S. Patent No. 10966846; U.S. Patent No. 10987236; and U.S. Patent No. 1129735. The specification common to these patents discloses transcatheter valves having a frame component including a balloon-expandable frame secured to a self-expanding frame. The common specification further disclosed serial-frame embodiments, in which the balloon-expandable and self-expanding frames attach to form a single frame, and dual-frame embodiments involving inner and outer frames."
"affirming most of a non-infringement ruling entered by the District of Delaware over accused transcatheter heart valve products with balloon-expandable frames. Addressing challenges to the district court's claim construction raised by Aortic, the Federal Circuit determined that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer for the claim term "outer frame" through consistent interchangeable uses of that term made in connection with specific embodiments disclosed in the specification."
The Federal Circuit affirmed most of the District of Delaware's non-infringement ruling in Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences concerning transcatheter heart valve patents. The asserted patents describe frames combining balloon-expandable and self-expanding components and disclose serial-frame and dual-frame embodiments with inner and outer frames. The parties disputed the meaning of the claim term "outer frame." The district court found that the specification used "outer frame" interchangeably with "self-expanding frames" and that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer. The Federal Circuit agreed that the specification's consistent interchangeable usage redefined "outer frame" for claim construction purposes.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]