|Edwards' crown jewels? The Sapien 3|
Expert and factual evidence showed that there are currently 7 THVs approved for use in the UK, and that the Sapien 3 represents about 60% of the market. For certain patient groups, the Sapien 3 is the only treatment option.
The '254 was found invalid in the High Court  EWHC 755 (Pat), but the '766 was held to be valid and infringed. Boston sought an injunction in the usual way, and Edwards resisted the grant of an injunction on the ground that there was a public interest in patients continuing to receive the Sapien 3.
The Court at first instance granted an unqualified injunction but stayed the injunction pending appeal (for which permission was granted on both sides). An order was also made for the provision of disclosure to assist Boston in making its election regarding an account of profits or a damages enquiry. On 10 May 2018, Boston elected for an account of profits, and those issues are likely to be heard in June to July 2019.
On 28 March 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, and remitted the issue of an injunction to the Patents Court - it is that hearing and issue which forms the basis of this post.
Stay of injunction in public interest: Edwards Lifesciences v Boston Reviewed by Eibhlin Vardy on Friday, May 25, 2018 Rating: