IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB’s non-obviousness finding affirmed in heart valve implant patent dispute, (Jun 9, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson

The PTAB did not err in finding certain claims were not shown to be unpatentable because the challenged claim constructions, which would be subject to de novo review, were actually findings of fact about the nature of prior art and were subject to review for substantial evidence.

A manufacturer of artificial heart valves failed to show the unpatentability of a competitor’s patent claims on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s challenged claim constructions were largely not claim constructions at all, but factual findings about the prior art (Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd., No. 23-1515 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 9, 2025)).

Cardiovalve, Ltd (Cardiovalve) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,385 (the ’385 patent), which claimed methods of using a prosthetic valve support in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences, LLC (collectively, Edwards) petitioned for inter partes review of all ten claims on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness by an embodiment of prior patent 7,563,267 (Goldfarb). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review, and during the review process Cardiovalve was allowed to substitute new claims 11-20 for the original claims 1-10. The Board found that Edwards failed to meet its burden to show the substitute claims were unpatentable. Edwards appealed.

Claim construction. Edwards argued that the Board erred by implicitly adopting a construction of “support portion” which required a unitary structure, by finding that prior art reference Goldfarb’s “collar” was not a “support portion,” and in construing the patent’s “advancing” limitation in a way which was not disclosed by the prior art.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board did not engage in implicit claim construction of “support portion” but rather made findings of fact about whether the prior art reference met the limitations of the patent claim. Goldfarb’s embodiment consisted of a single, unitary structure while the patent claims required separate elements. Likewise, it was a finding of fact, supported by substantial evidence, that Goldfarb’s “collar” could not function as the “support portion” referred to in the patent claims. It was not coupled to, and therefore could not support, the required parts of the device at the time of delivery. Finally, the court found no error in the Board’s decision that the plain and ordinary meaning of “advancing” only required that some, but not necessarily all, of the support portion be advanced out of the delivery tube.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision.

The Case is No. 23-1515.

Judge: Cunningham, T.

Attorneys: Joshua Stowell (Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP) for Edwards LifeSciences Corp. and Edwards LifeSciences LLC. Sara Tonnies Horton (Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP) for Cardiovalve Ltd.

Companies: Edwards LifeSciences Corp.; Edwards LifeSciences LLC; Cardiovalve Ltd.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews GCNNews