July 2, 2018 – Edwards Lifesciences Corporation had filed a petition for inter partes review against Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.’s stent crimper patent.
On June 28, 2018, in its final written decision, the Board found claims of a patent directed to a stent crimper unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board held that Petitioner has shown that the device of prior art patent ’657 would have been capable of crimping a stent, and, thus, is a ‘stent crimper.’ The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the problems associated with uneven crimping and would have been motivated to apply patent ’657] to obtain the benefit, “known in the art, of features such as a straight–sided die and polygonal aperture, to balance compressive forces toward the center of the work.”
The Board found unpersuasive the patent owner’s evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness since the Patent Owner offered virtually no substantive evidence of commercial success, no analysis to show the prior art alternatives that failed to solve the problem, and very little credible support of long-felt need and failure of others.
The Board also denied the patent owner’s motion to exclude the supplemental declaration of the petitioner’s expert and the petitioner’s reply for allegedly including new claim construction issues and arguments. The Board held that “Patent Owner has made no showing that the Supplemental Declaration or Petitioner’s Reply are inadmissible, since the Supplemental Declaration and Petitioner’s Reply do not exceed the proper scope provided by our rules.”
The patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560, entitled “Apparatus for contracting, loading or crimping self-expanding and balloon expandable stent devices.” The case is captioned Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. et al, Case No. IPR2017-00444.
By: Julian G. Pymento