A Medical Device Daily

Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, Califorenia) reported filing a lawsuit vs. CoreValve (Irvine, California), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, charging infringement of three of its Andersen family of patents for transcatheter heart valve technology.

“Edwards has a significant portfolio of patents in transcatheter heart valve technology, led by the Andersen patent family, and we are committed to protecting this valuable intellectual property and the interests of our clinician-inventors,” said Bruce Garren, Edwards’ corporate VP and general counsel.

In May 2007, Edwards initiated litigation against CoreValve in the District Court of Dusseldorf, Germany, for infringement of a related Andersen patent, EP 0 592 410 B1, and similar litigation is pending in the UK. The European litigations address the sale of CoreValve’s alleged infringing valves, according to Edwards. It says that the suit just filed targets CoreValve’s manufacturing of valves in the U.S. for export and sale in Europe.

U.S. patents, No. 5,411,552, No. 6,168,614 and No. 6,582,462 — part of the Andersen patent portfolio owned by Edwards — relate to a valve prosthesis for implantation by means of a catheter; the product named in the suit is the CoreValve ReValving System.

Edwards focuses on developing products to treat heart valve disease and vascular disease and for critical care.

CoreValve’s percutaneous ReValving system is its flagship product.

In other legalities: CryoCor (San Diego) reported that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has declared a patent interference between a patent application licensed by CryoCor and two patents held by one of its competitors, CryoCath Technologies (Montreal).

CryoCor said that the patent interference is related to pre-cooling technologies that it considers important to its cryoablation system.

CryoCor said that the USPTO designated it as the senior party in the interference as its patent application was found to predate CryoCath’s original patent applications. The interference dispute will be determined by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and presided over by an administrative patent judge, with proceedings scheduled to begin in March.

CryoCor reported that a second interference, also in the field of pre-cooling, is anticipated to be declared by the USPTO in the first half of 2008.

Ed Brennan, PhD, president/CEO of CryoCor, said, “We are very pleased with USPTO’s decision to grant CryoCor’s request to declare this interference, and we anticipate a second interference between CryoCor and CryoCath to be declared in the near future... . These patent interferences are an important part of our strategy to secure our intellectual property position in the field of cryoablation.”